The Only Way Microsoft Can Die is by Suicide

Bitseeker writes "Robert X. Cringley's latest article is online. He opens with: 'When I wrote last week about my conclusion that the legal system -- any legal system -- is unequipped to change Microsoft's monopolistic behavior, I had no idea that within 24 hours, Sun Microsystem would be throwing in the towel, trading its so-called principles for $1.95 billion in cash. So I guess I was right. Only now, a few thousand readers out there expect me to blithely produce an answer to the problem of what to do to bring Microsoft into the civilized world. Well, I say it can't be done.'"

Comments

so what...

[rohan_leader]

Only now, a few thousand readers out there expect me to blithely produce an answer to the problem of what to do to bring Microsoft into the civilized world. Well, I say it can't be done.'"

hmm... What's new?

Re:so what...

[ron_ivi]

That's true of most large established industries. I don't expect GM to stop making cars, or Wal*Mart to give up retail, or P&G to stop making consumer products either.

Just another sign that software is leaving high-tech and becoming a mature industry.

If you want high-tech for the next decade or so, think bio, nano, and robotics, not software.

Re:so what...

[tickticktickfast]

The difference is that that there are significant numbers of other cars besides GM cars and there are a significant number of other viable merchants besides Wal Mart. The difference is that automobiles represent technologies and economic systems that are past mature and on their way to becoming defunct. Comparing the situation with computers to cars and stores doesn't help anyone come to grips with a serious problem that has a large and growing negative impact on their cost of living. The only thing mature about the software industry is Microsoft's death grip on the consumers grossly distorted view of what Microsoft has done and can do for them. If you use computers then Microsoft takes your money whether you want them to or not. The believe that software is mature will take a serous dive when the death toll and overall cost from trashy software begins to enter the public consciousness. Computing technology and broadband communication will play a much bigger role in every aspect of our future than it does today. Computing technology is still in its infancy and a couple of people who don't give a flying f*&k about anything but control have you and me and everyone else by the doodads. Its not OK for the neurological system for planet earth to fall into the hands of the two greedy control freeks who now have enough money to buy and advertise themselves out of just about any conflict with the public interest. Promoting apathy with regard to this situation is not understandable.

Re:so what...

[Trelane]

Indeed. I agree. I use Linux for 99% of my yearly computing tasks. Exceptions: tax software is really the only thing I'm lacking on Linux.

That said, not all highways (websites), nor parking garages/lots (programs) will work on any car (OS). Most (95%) require Ford (Microsoft). Finally, other drivers (computer users) are scared of the Saturn (Linux), since they've only ever seen and driven Fords and therefore find a Saturn un-intuitive (the light's over there?!). Furthermore, since everyone's garage came with a Ford pre-installed, few people feel the need to buy anything but a Ford, since they've generally already bought one. Finally, the gas stations (word processor, spreadsheet, presentation, etc.) are predominantly owned by Ford, so when you go to work, you generally have to either be driving a Ford, or have a Ford-compatible gas tank. So, while you can use Linux quite successfully (indeed, except for a rare exception, I and many others do), a parallel can be drawn between living as a non-Ford, erm, Microsoft user in a Microsoft world and being eaten by ants--lots of small annoyances because one company has the whole industry by the cojones.

Just to pull a (not very great) parallel here. :)

Re:so what...

[russellh]

And it's really no different than the advantage of the bow over the sword, it's just easier to gain basic competence with a firearm.

that's the essential point. Individual power is magnified by technology. Modern weapons enable individuals to be dangerous (powerful) like never before. The same goes for computers and software. Is it a good thing?

Re:so what...

[Mipsalawishus]

"If you use computers then Microsoft takes your money whether you want them to or not."

Really? I didn't know that Microsoft gets a kickback when I install/run Linux on the servers I build for my customers. :^)

Public Awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the public needs to be more educated about the alternatives to the monopoly which controls the machines all around us, as well as about the monopoly itself and the harm that it does. Then again, there have been such attempts made on various scales, yet on the whole, apathy seems to be the victor.

Re:Public Awareness

[mek2600]

I disagree that apathy has been the victor so far- we're just fighting a very uphill battle. Microsoft got lucky in the fact that the time in which they came "into power" was when the industry was very open to someone rising up and dominating. Now we just just have to do what most of us are doing- dispelling FUD, contributing to the open source community, and doing other activities that generally chip away at Microsoft's base.

Remember, Rome not only wasn't built in a day, but also wasn't destroyed in a day either. We're on the right track, but it's going to take a while to get people over to the alternatives of Microsoft.

Re:Public Awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, admittedly the open-source community does need to do their share to make the alternatives more friendly to new-comers, but it goes beyond that. I mean, most people don't install and configure Windows on their machines, either. It comes pre-installed from whichever manufacturer they choose for their PC purchase.

Now, if the public were to speak up and say, "Hey, why can we not buy our computers with this alternative to Windows?", perhaps some effort would be made by OEMs to appease the masses.

Unfortunately, to be realistic about it, this is not something that could happen overnight. In fact, for the bigger OEMs, it would be a huge gamble, because of just how Microsoft will not allow these distributors to offer a Linux alternative if they still want to keep their MS licenses. Perhaps some smaller companies could catch on, or even Joe Average's geeky friend may lend a hand and provide a sufficient machine and Linux install.

Essentially, it comes down to the open-source community to inform the public, and to make certain aspects of the Linux-based operating systems (software installation, drivers, etc.) a little more streamlined for a point-and-click world, as seems to be the case with the current dominant family of OSes known as Windows.

I just wonder if these efforts would catch on, as the public does tend to be weary to change, and with Microsoft so ingrained in our culture, people may naturally be reluctant or apathetic. We just need to keep fighting the good fight and not giving up, I suppose.

Re:Public Awareness

[Jin Wicked]

That's so true... I guess my main point was that I see a lot of comments on this site that amount to the public being apathetic towards alternatives, or not caring, that almost seem contemptuous of the majority of not terribly technical users (like myself). You don't blame the problem on the victim, the problem being the MS monopoly, and the victim being people that never even have the chance to know why they should use something else, or have a good alternative that's suited to their technical skills.

If you want more people to use Linux, the best tool by far will be to make it usable by the general public, as easy and understandable as Windows is. I'd switch in a heartbeat if I didn't have so many problems with it before, and could get the programs I need to run my business.

Re:Public Awareness

[macgyvr64]

It's so true, though, that a lot of people simply _do_not_care_. Many just want to use their computer to communicate with people and get some basic tasks done with it. They don't realize just how configureable a computer is. They get it from any standard PC retail place, and most often it runs Windows. People accept Windows as the only way they have to interact with it, and go about their business. I think the problems facing Linux are:

1) Consumer awareness
2) Ease of use
3) Compatibility

People have to know about Linux to get it, and know exactly what it does. If I asked the people I know who are just-getting-by with a computer what Linux is, they wouldn't have a clue. And IF they'd heard the name, they assume it's some uber-geeky computer "thing" they'd rather not (and/or don't need to) know. See #2. Finally, since MS already has such a big monopoly that's not going away in the blink of an eye, Linux has to work with MS products.

...as I write this on my PowerBook. I'd go into the wonders of OS X here and how it's begun to accoplish all that goodness, but it's been done.

.02

Re:Public Awareness

[WindBourne]

and I did my best to make myself a dual boot system but I couldn't get it running on my own.
That is the issue. Doing a dual boot is a hard thing to do when one of the companies is fighting it. Probably one of the smarter things that we can do is create a modified knoppix that would create a partition that is used for /home and /etc, but boot from the cdrom.

Re:Public Awareness

[Cloud K]

Apathy might not be too far off the mark, but I think it's a little deeper a problem than that.

Linux (for instance) doesn't really *do* anything new that the average consumer cares about. That includes stability, security and neat GNU tools. Most people I've spoken to and failed to "convert" aren't bothered that they have to reboot once in a while. Some are concerned that they might get hacked, in which case they get a geek friend to install a firewall and do all the updates. Others aren't bothered at all ("there's nothing important on here anyway"). And they certainly don't care about geek tools that they'll never even try to understand.

On the desktop, it's generally seen by the public as a free "imitation" of Windows that's always trying to play catch-up. As slashdotters we know better than that, but even still... strictly in Linux's desktop capacity (and thinking of average users, not geeks)... it's largely true.

Linux needs to do something *groundbreaking* that Windows doesn't, that Microsoft can't suddenly copy, *and* that the public actually care about. That is no easy task, especially given Linux's open source nature. Microsoft can easily make a development top-secret (just look at information on their new Longhorn interface, or lack thereof) but how can an open-source project be kept secret?

Put simply though, Linux needs to stop playing catch-up and overtake - borrow Microsoft's buzzword and "innovate".

Until that happens, yes it'll continue taking over the server market, but for Desktop Joe it'll always be a product that does exactly the same things but with less support, less compatibility and always playing catch-up.

A positive example of hope is Mozilla Firefox. That is an example of how Linux should be. It's way better than IE, and I know a lot of general public users who do actually use it. My parents use it, friends, fellow board visitors that I've helped to convert etc. This is because it features built-in tabbed browsing, it's extremely easy to "clean up", isn't succeptable to popups, spyware, self-installers etc, it's easy to use and it looks good. These are innovations or features that Desktop Joe *does* care about and that Internet Explorer doesn't actually do. This is a perfect example of the combination of innovation on the OSS side and suicide from Microsoft. The suicide being that they were too greedy - they were determined to keep the next version of IE for the next version of Windows so that they could list it in the features and essentially charge for it. Unfortunately for them, they seemed to forget that Longhorn is dragging ass. Finally they have a new version planned for XP SP2, but is it too little too late? Time will tell.

Microsoft's suicide on the desktop OS market *could* be Longhorn, but Linux developers need to work at it too - hard and fast - and bring a little homicide into the equation. MS are taking so bloody long with the thing that Linux could have time. But in the 2 year window it has, it had better come up with something damn good for the consumer.

The other problem is popularity - it's the old problem of "it's not popular, so why should I be a guinea pig?". Most people I've failed to convert have at least once used the argument of "well I just want to stay with the mainstream, that way I'm compatible with everyone else." I can't really argue with that, as it's true - they can't just buy a piece of hardware (or software) off the shelf and expect it to work like they can with Windows. They can't just take a disk off a friend with some data they saved from some proprietary Windows-based software and expect it to open in Linux. What can we do? Nothing really, it has to gain popularity either gradually or through some awesome innovation that people are willing to give all this up for.

Re:Public Awareness

[SmackCrackandPot]

I think the problems facing Linux are:

1) Consumer awareness
2) Ease of use
3) Compatibility

The last item is the biggest obstacle. Just about every newspaper has now published at least one article about "Linux" being of concern to Microsoft, and that it looks just like the Windows desktop. However, ask your average home user about switching over to Linux, and you will probably receive the following objections:

[1] We wouldn't be able to access our files
[2] We wouldn't be able to use our existing ISP.

Internet providers such as Telewest don't provide direct support for Linux. The best users have been able to do, is to use a dual boot system with Windows used to configure the account, and Linux used once everything has been set up. Sure, there are Linux friendly ISP's out there, but Telewest more or less have the monopoly on 2 Megabit Internet access.

Re:Public Awareness

[Joe Tie.]

If you want more people to use Linux, the best tool by far will be to make it usable by the general public, as easy and understandable as Windows is.

It's not going to happen, ever. The only reason windows is easy to use is because people are used to it, they've been trained to understand the feel of it and some of the logic behind how it works. The reason I have for thinking this is because I'm on the opposite side of the fence. I've been using linux so long at home that I have a hard time doing anything beyond the most basic level with windows. I installed windows on my computer recently in order to ensure one of my programs would properly build there. I don't think I've ever been more annoyed trying to get something working. Which is weird because I remember thinking the exact same thing at one point about linux before moving to it from windows. Sure, both have changed to some extent since then. But I think the main difference is just being in the groove of the particular style of one when trying to talk to the other.

Re:Public Awareness

[MasonMcD]

I think the geeks might be less contemptuous if the majority of America hadn't laughed at them most of their lives about

1) how stupid their interests were
2) how they didn't understand computers anyway, though
3) how everyone was just jealous of Microsoft for their success, and allowing the Justice department to ride that wave of public sentiment.

I don't get how most people say they don't have time to be informed about computer issues, yet are so quick to offer their opinion. And this, rather than the experts, are seen at the more valid voice.

Re:Public Awareness

[markalot]

No no.

Your absolutly correct when it comes to COMPUTER USERS. But we are talking about the need to make the shift to computers as appliances. We don't call people that can operate microwaves 'microwave users'. If you want to be successful you have to make it usable by the majority of people. Just turn it on and it works. Microsoft realized this so to win the game they mae everyone pre-install and then tied everything to the OS. This makes it easy for the typical person to just turn it on and have everything work.

If you want to set back personal computing by 5 or 10 years then successfully argue that the end user must install all of their software and Microsoft can't include it. Make it so when they want to watch a video they have to choose to install Real or WM or QT. In other words ask the questions to the exact person who is least qualified to answer them, and then make fun of them for not being able to figure out what to do.

Oh, but watch out, if you do win then you can expect lawsuits over those monopolistic bastards at KDE including their own browser instead of giving the user a choice.

This is not to say, though, that Microsoft was not wrong to threaten vendors with penalties for bundling other op systems with computers. They were wrong and it was quite stupid because I don't believe it would have cost them any sales. As far as Windows goes, however, I support their right to bundle whatever they want with it. Usability IS the key for non computer types. This usability argument you make is only true for people who are what we consider the typical computer user, or techie.

Re:Public Awareness

[HeyLaughingBoy]

But the thing you and other posters except Jim Wicked seem to be missing is "why should they care?" And the answer is not some idealistic belief in shutting down unreasonable monopolies. The gas company in most areas is a monopoly. Ask your neighbors if they really think about that on a daily basis.

I mean, really, do you think the average person wants more speed and cornering ability out of the family car? It's certainly possible and usually not that hard. But most people see computers, like cars, as appliances. It does what they need when they take it home,and you can even add functionality to it later by installing more software in the case you need to.

The average person really has no need to be concerned about these details, and unless a compelling reason to care comes along, all this handwringing is pointless.

Business, on the other hand, does care because of the annoying and expensive (and usually unwanted) upgrade cycles. And anyone looking to reduce Microsoft's market share should concentrate their efforts on demonstrating the effectiveness of Linux to business.

Re:Public Awareness

[JordanH]

• Business, on the other hand, does care because of the annoying and expensive (and usually unwanted) upgrade cycles. And anyone looking to reduce Microsoft's market share should concentrate their efforts on demonstrating the effectiveness of Linux to business.

MS has a war chest of $60 Billion. They add to this at around the rate of $1 Billion/month. If business really cared, they would use alternatives and MS couldn't charge so much.

MS has it figured out. They know exactly the point of pain where they can charge high prices and require subscriptions but still make it more painful for businesses to migrate. Sometimes, they push that point just to get an accurate idea of how high the pain should be. To them, the Linux migrations that are occurring now are just feedback in their marketing plans.

Make no doubt about it, MS can afford to and will make drastic price cuts and offer free upgrades if Linux becomes a serious competitor.

The only real threat is that a tipping point will occur which will precipitate a major shift in the market that will get out of their control.

Re:Public Awareness

[naelurec]

The general public doesn't understand what FOSS is all about. The general public DOES care about saving money. When I install Mozilla, GAIM or other FOSS on their computers and show that it is better than the $100 or so of popup blockers, spam filters and other "windows patches" that they bought and is FREE, they perk up.

About this time, they sit back and the next thing they usually ask is "Why is it free?" -- I got their attention. I know they only care for probably 45 seconds, so I very briefly tell them some of the keypoints on how FOSS is similar to the underlying concept in the movie "Pay It Forward" and why FOSS makes sense.

I don't go on how MS software is poor, how MS has bad business practices or any of that. I think by showing the strengths of FOSS, these people are smart enough to see the power of FOSS and the GPL-- "hey, as more people use FOSS, more people develop FOSS/GPL, and it gets better, faster" -- needless to say, it takes a while to truly understand why FOSS/GPL is so powerful (it honestly took me over a year before it started to click beyond just being "free as in beer").

Ultimately? It seems like most everyone I show Mozilla are still using it (I have been doing this since before the 1.0 release) and showing others Mozilla. Infact, I know quite a few people who I showed Mozilla in a business setting, going online and installing it for friends, family and relatives. No doubt that these people are spreading the word as well.

Re:Public Awareness

[TheSpoom]

What, exactly, are you trying to say here? It seems to me that you're saying that ease of use isn't what's holding people back from Linux... so... what? What is, if not ease of use? Or are you trying to advocate that Linux should ONLY be used by techies? Or perhaps that we should try to defeat Microsoft by doing... what? "Kick them in the balls?"

Look, people need to be aware that Linux exists, sure, but ease of use IS A PROBLEM. If the average person used to Windows tried to install a distro of Linux on their system, they'd run away from the computer screaming (with the exception perhaps of something like Xandros). And then they'd swear never to touch it again.

Normal people *want to avoid a command line as much as possible*. Sure, it's good and a necessity to have it there, but we already have that, let's work to create a workable, efficient, useable user interface that lets people get things done quickly, and with as little possible issues as possible (dependancies, necessity to drop to a command prompt, non-working drivers, etc.). Linux is on its way there, but attitudes like that of the parent will not get us anywhere.

Re:Public Awareness

[zaphod8829]

I happen to think you're dead wrong. If ease of use weren't attractive to the average consumer, why did AOL dominate?

Also, I'll grant you that VCRs, DVDs, etc. weren't terribly easy to use when they came out, but one of the major things that helped people out was that they were all completely consistent in the interface, at least the primary one. Play, pause, stop, fast-forward, rewind, next chapter, previous chapter. I know there are tens of other features on most DVD players, but how many average-joe type people use them?

This discrepancy among interfaces is also what has kept Apple alive in the past. People were unwilling to learn Windows as an alternative. Granted, OS X is wonderful, and I'd argue much better than Windows, but that hasn't always been true of MacOS.

Finally, I think a major portion of what keeps Linux off of most people's computers is lack of software compatibility. OpenOffice.org is nice, but most average-joe users don't realize how close to compatible with MS Office it is. Also, there are so many little things -- the CDROM that comes with textbooks, the stupid little games packaged with breakfast cereals, etc. that simply won't work in Linux.

I think things like this, far more than driver compatibility or any such thing, is important. If I had more time, I'd be throwing it at helping develop wine. Until people can switch, and keep all the little niceties that come with software compatibility (I know viruses, spyware and such fall into this category, but it goes with the territory).

That's the important thing in my mind. Average Joe doesn't want to keep a table in his head of Linux equivalents for Windows software. That's all they know about. Most people don't even know they have Windows, because it's not in the Programs menu.

Also, this will get many PHB types to switch. If they can keep using the same apps, it's easier to argue the switch. After that, argue to switch the apps one-by-one if you like. Once people get used to using it at work, they'll clamor for it at home. It worked for Microsoft!

So, a good, solid Wine layer is a majorly important thing if what we really want is desktop dominance. I'd chuck my Windows partition in a second if I thought I could run Half-Life 2 under Linux.

Re:Public Awareness

[PsiPsiStar]

When Red Hat first came out, I formatted my machine and tried to install it. I had a ton of hardware probelms that I couldn't troubleshoot in Linux. I asked a friend of mine who was better with the environment ( I had never done anything with linux that didn't involve telneting into a server to maintain a website ). He couldn't fix it.

I tried again about 2 years a later and got a computer suitable for testing perl scripts on, but that was about it.

I work under Windows now. It has all the programs I need and it works. Maybe I'll try again in a year or two with Mandrake or somesuch, or when I'm back in an office environment where other folks use Linux. But there's no hurry and I can troubleshoot Windows a lot better than I can Linux.

If you think the barrier to Linux use doesn't have to do with usability you've never talked to the folks who tried it and walked away.

Re:Public Awareness

[mytec]

If you want more people to use Linux, the best tool by far will be to make it usable by the general public, as easy and understandable as Windows is. It's not going to happen, ever. The only reason windows is easy to use is because people are used to it, they've been trained to understand the feel of it and some of the logic behind how it works.

I don't entirely agree with that. Take a USB Flash drive. If I put that into a USB slot on OS X an icon appears on my desktop. If I have Finder open I see the same icon appear. There is feedback. I know that something happened. If I take the same USB flash drive over to Windows XP (Home Edition) I see: found new hardware and then your new hardware is installed and ready to use. If I open up Explorer or double-click on My Computer I see the icon representing the device under removable storage which makes a lot of sense. When I do the same with this SUSE 9.0 I get zero feedback. Zilch. I have no idea if my action was successful or not and worse I have no idea where this device was mounted. The process with SUSE isn't any where as intuitive as it could and should be.

Let us take that same Toshiba notebook and deal with video. The first time I put SUSE on it my card wasn't recognized. That didn't bug me so much. I had a low resolution but I could use the GUI and search for an appropriate driver. I found a package by nVidia. I run the package and it needs the kernel source code? What?! How many regular users will be like, WTF is kernel source code? Then what version? Oh, the source code corresponding to the version I'm running. Hmm, what version am I running? So we get by that and find out I cannot stay in the GUI to get my driver configured and working. Instead I have to boot into a text mode (again...regular users will love that) and run sax2. Great... I don't know what the preferred resolution is for the LCD display my laptop has. I no longer have my manuals but shouldn't the driver have an idea? Even the display is smart enough to tell me I'm in a less than optimal resolution. Great, boot back into the GUI and do a Google search for my laptop and find out the preferred resolution is 1280x800. Exit the GUI and set the resolution using "Expert Mode" (or whatever the tab was).

The point being that things like this can be made far easier and they should be. Using any Linux distro, you shouldn't be required to have a deep understanding of the hardware you are using when other OS's more often than not don't require that knowledge.

In my humble opinion I think that Linux distros, in particular the GUI's, will be come easier and easier to use and will actually exceed the usability of Windows as in general the community of Linux developers tend to listen to their users and that will make all the difference in the long run.

Re:Public Awareness

[timeOday]

It's not about Linux in particular. If the only way to "compete" with MS is to give away something for free, something is wrong already.

I can accept that, for some goods and services, markets simply don't flourish. But let's quit pretending that companies in "winner takes all" niches are controlled by market forces when they're not. For the public to sit by year after year as MS gouges for Windows and Office is simply negligent.

Re:Public Awareness

[rajafarian]

Slashdotter to average person:
"Look, our rights are being eroded by the government and Microsoft. Our government lied to us to start a war that is costing us almost $100 billion a year and then is lying to us about the budget so we don't think about it..."
The average person: "Ha? Sorry, not interested."

Slashdotter to average person:
"Look Janet Jackson just showed her nipple!"
Average person: "Oh, my God, our country is falling apart! Who can I sue? Why isn't the government protecting us from Janet's nipple?!??!

Re:Public Awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

If business really cared, they would use alternatives and MS couldn't charge so much.

Name a viable alternative to PeopleSoft that runs on Linux.

Name a viable industrial strength CAD/CAM program on Linux? [Something that you can use to safely design, say, a 100 story building with.]

Name a viable construction estimating package for Linux?

Name viable language translation packages for Linux.

Name a POS for Linux that allows a merchant to have 2 000 000 different products in their inventory. [ 10 000 000 plus items in stock]

Is there viable software for studying the Q'ran / The Bible / The Torah / The Talmud / The Hadiths / The Doaist Cannon / The Buddhist Cannon with the original language, and translations?

Name a package that works for writing Screen Plays, on a Linux Box.

Are there any Law Office Suites for Linux?

Or Back Office Medical Packages. Or Front office packages, for that matter?

Or Forensic Document Examination software for Linux.

The biggest failure of Linux can be found in the lack of viable accounting packages for the SOHO market.

MS can afford to and will make drastic price cuts

Those cash reserves will allow them to afford such a strategy for a while. When their cash runs out, they will only have retained the north american, and maybe part of the european market.

and offer free upgrades if Linux becomes a serious competitor.

Microsoft allready sees Linux as a serious competitor. Look at how they fight when a major client hints that they will switch to Linux. Or the loibbiest they employ to con governments into believing that windows is more secure and reliable than Open Source Software, when said governments start to issue mandates that OSS be used.

The only real threat is that a tipping point will occur which will precipitate a major shift in the market that will get out of their control.

That will occur when a bunch of number cruching PHBs decide that it is more cost effective to scrap their current contract(s) with MS, and use a different vendor.

Re:Public Awareness

[shut_up_man]

Wow, the timing on this story (and your post) is pretty eerie... I had a very similar conversation about Microsoft just yesterday, and with a graphic artist, too.

I was trying to explain to him exactly why different browsers process or render html/css code differently. I'd spent my entire Easter friday in the office, buggering about with a particular website that shall remain nameless, trying to get it ready for its launch on Easter monday. He was completely mystified that Mac IE5.2 and Safari should look different with the same code, not to mention the differences between PC Firefox and PC IE 6. His opinion was "It's the internet, of course it should all look and work the same. Aren't there standards?" I tried to explain that yes, there are standards, but companies like Microsoft deviate from them to strengthen their position in the market. If a major company's product is the de facto standard, it follows that even if the minor players do things according to the standards, the perception is that their products are actually broken.

It was then a short step to his annoyance with people who like Macs, or hate Windows, or love Amiga (ok I added that one in there, he didn't mention Amiga at all). They're just tools, he said - you use whatever's around, do your job, and go home. If the buttons are in a different place on a Mac, who cares? If the Windows version does things differently, there's no difference. It's like a car, with its indicator on the left side of the steering column instead of the right. His blissful ignorance of the frustrations of incompatible protocols, file formats and systems comes from working in an industry where it doesn't matter. GIFs work everywhere. TIFFs do too, and when you print a poster out on A0, it's fairly unlikely that someone will wander along with an incompatible reality and make it look different.

About this time, I think I realised that Microsoft is going to be around for a long, long, long time. No-one outside IT cares that Microsoft Movie Player can load a bunch of movie formats, but only output one. In fact, no one even comprehends why that's even important.

Re:Public Awareness

[Bendebecker]

Linux has to work with MS products

Which is one of the reasons Linux may never catch on. The format of M$'s products have parts that are proprietary - no one but M$ knows how to interpet those parts. As a result, no linux products will ever work 100% with M$ products. However, since linux is open source and the formats are totally in the open, M$ can make their products easily work with Linux. End result: Linux will never have the usability of windows. Even if someone came out with a great new product for linux, M$ could simply change their OS so that it also works on windows. I hate to say it, but for Linux to catch on, open source has got to go. Other than that? Maybe if Apple started allowing their OS to run on non-apple computers, we might have a real alternative or maybe IBM can come up with something (Sun just sold out to M$ so they are out of the fight), but Linux? At this poitn it still can't compete at the level of the average user.

Re:Public Awareness

[Tough Love]

Make no doubt about it, MS can afford to and will make drastic price cuts and offer free upgrades if Linux becomes a serious competitor.

Microsoft may be able to afford that but Microsoft shareholders can't. Make no mistake about it, Microsoft will be punished in the stock market for any discounting, especially if it looks like it might go on for a long time.

Re:Public Awareness

[C0rinthian]

Unfortunately, you can't expect very tech-savvy tech support reps working for $9/hour in the US. (or like $2/hr overseas) I work at a tech support firm myself doing internet tech support, and when it comes to unsupported OS'es, software, etc we are specifically instructed NOT to troubleshoot. In your case, I would have given you the server names and generic configuration options and let you config the software yourself. (I'm suprised this wasn't done for you in the first place) Most people working tech support (especially for ISPs) only know what their employer has trained them for. Basic setup and troubleshooting for Windows amd MAC OS systems. Linux is as alien to them as it is to your typical Windows user. Back on topic: Microsoft has put themselves in a very strategic place in the market. 99% of the userbase doesn't know there are options, or even know that they would want there to be options. Most of them can't fathom that the hardware and software are seperate things and if it came with Windows, it will always need Windows to work. Hell, some of them are so uneducated that they don't even know they have Windows in the first place. It's just a computer to them. ("What operating system do you have?" "Dell" is a lot more common than you can imagine) I guess a parallel would be in the automotive industry. Your Ford comes with a Ford exhaust system. Now, car enthusiasts know you can install exhaust systems fom other manufacturers that are made to work with a Ford car. Average drivers have no clue about this, and assume that a Ford needs Ford parts, and would not even imagine that someone elses parts will work with their car. It really comes down to public ignorance of HOW computers function on the most basic level. Don't expect this to change quickly. Most people have no desire to learn this. They assume it's too complicated. Remember, alot of people out there didn't grow up with computers as a part of their lives, so it's very foreign to them. You notice how kids are usually better with computers than their parents? That generation, to whom computing is something they've always known and patently understand will be the ones to really question the state of the market and bring about sweeping change.

Re:Public Awareness

[mvpll]

Proprietary formats are a doubled-edged sword though.

As governments, businesses and individuals realize that access to their data (their preciousss IP) is not controlled by themselves but by one or more fickle for-profit organization(s), open standard formats start looking pretty damn attractive for a number of reasons.

Principles?

[Bobdoer]

trading its so-called principles for $1.95 billion in cash
How many people wouldn't trade their principles for almost 2 billion dollars?

Re:Principles?

[Anonymous Coward]

Richard Stallman wouldn't.

Re:Principles?

[mashiyach]

Not Microsoft, nor any other company nor any one else could cause me to trade my principles for any amount of money. There is a world to be saved out there. To keep ones principles is the most important we can do. Principles are holy! Microsoft has signed their own death sentence.

Re:Principles?

[Some Bitch]

Stallman is considered by most people outside of GNU fanboys/linux zealots to be part of a lunatic fringe. His retarded opinions don't matter.

I disagree. More and more people are looking at the trouble caused by software patents and realising that rms was right all along.

Re:Principles?

[Anonymous Coward]

"How many people wouldn't trade their principles for almost 2 billion dollars?"

I can't really think up a better way to sum up what's wrong with American society today.

Re:Principles?

[Lord of Ironhand]

it's that he can't explain his side without sounding like some cult leader. Plus Stallman can't relate to ordinary users.

There are enough people who can. Let them do that. RMS doesn't let his opinions be clouded by the desire to be loved and understood by everyone. That may not be desirable in a PR person, but it sure as hell is in the person who founded the free software community.

As long as there are others to explain the advantages of Free Software to the people who care just about using computers, I say let RMS remain RMS.

Re:Principles?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying RMS should change or he has some desire to be "loved and understood", just that he makes a poor spokesperson for the FSF movement. Face it, most people in the world aren't programmers, so him preaching raw GPL philosophy will go over the heads of most.

The smartest.... bah

[Peridriga]

The smartest reader of all suggested that companies be taxed on their market share so that a company like Microsoft with 90 percent share would pay 90 percent sales tax.

The simply response to the smartest reader, as an Economics major, is why in the hell would I even try to get market share in the first place since I now have a strong fiscal insentive NOT to try to.

Imagine a world where the better you get at something the more punished you are. Why would you get better? It's like smacking a child every time s/he tries to walk. Why would s/he walk?

Someone please explain why saying "bad" for being "good" at something is a Good Thing. Please! I want to know...

Re:The smartest.... bah

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, tax rates tend to increase with salary amongst citizens. Why shouldn't the same apply to companies? As long as they're still making more money...

Re:The smartest.... bah

[cubyrop]

of course you're right...it is after all unreasonable to punish someone for being good. for being successful.

for creating a product with such a strong business plan that you end up the most successful company in modern history, dominating your field.

if your principles demand you stand up for companies who are punished for getting better, then stand in front of microsoft and defend them too.

Re:The smartest.... bah

[dave1g]

well yes that was extreme, but you could start the insane taxes at about 66- 75% market share as the idea being that consumers can only get hurt by a company controlling that much. And in economics you do learn that monopolies are bad, they dont serve the economy well. Economist know that society gets the best value when there are many competitors for a given output.

Economics is not about the betterment of the few but the betterment of the whole. In most cases a monopoly doesnt benefit the whole. In some it does. Those are usually natural monopolies, such as utilities and governments.

If you had multiple electric wres coming into your home from different vendors then your energy prices would sky rocket because in order for the companies to all compete they would need to all build wires to all the homes.

So it is better to have a regulated monopoly.

Re:The smartest.... bah

[nut]

The ex-presidents are a team of bank robbers. Not only that but they're really good bank robbers. They can get in and out of a bank with the moeny in under 60 seconds and be gone before the cops even find out a robbery has taken place. Yet in spite of that the cops and justice system keep trying to punish them for being "really good" at something.

I'm not trying to imply that Microsoft are just criminals (although they are that as well of course) but I want to point out that it is possible to become extremely competent at an activity that is not socially beneficial.

And society will, quite rightly, attempt to prevent you from carrying on that activity.

Re:The smartest.... bah

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that most monopolies, including Microsoft, exist in large part because of the government?
--------------
I was going to mod you down, but I realized it would be too much an abdication of my principles even for idiocy like this. Here's the standard loonytarian viewpoints, quick version:

"prices are high because of regulation. we must deregulate to get better competition and prices"

*deregulation occurs exactly as demanded*

"we have horrendous monopolies and rising prices because deregulation did not occur completely. the tyrannical gov't still bans [some horrendously illegal action, such as murder], and this is the reason that prices are rising. we must let corporations act in a completely amoral way, for example [kill people who don't buy their products]. that would certainly lower prices. if you don't believe me, read [some book] by Ayn Rand"
--------------
You, sir, are a fucking jackass

Re:The smartest.... bah

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you have a small company in a small market. You might have 90% market share, but in no way be able to afford a 90% tax rate. You're dead.

Re:The smartest.... bah

[trmj]

if Microsoft charges $100 for Windows 3000 and has a 90% market share, they would have to collect $190 from the purchaser and send $90 to the government

Not what the article says. It implies that MS would be getting taxed on things they buy, not taxing the end user, although that's how it would even out for MS.

First, you have missed the point altogether, that we want large companies not to get more market share

Great idea. The taxing of a company that has 90% market share could be seen as a blessing. But it won't happen, and not because the government is too dumb, as the article implies.

Let's start with why this taxing scheme is a bad idea up front: pretend you started a company. You produce a product and it becomes accepted in the market, gaining popularity as time passes. You continue to make this product better and it gets more popular. You realize you have enough customers to have a chunk of Market Share(TM), we'll say at 6%. Great for you! You pay 6% tax of things your company purchases. Not bad, since that's standard PA sales tax.

So what's the incentive to grow bigger? You end up paying more and more and getting less and less profit if you keep growing. You get to 15% market share and realize that you won't be making much money at all soon. What do you do? Stop getting more popular. How? Don't make your product better anymore. That'll keep people from evangelizing for ya (after all, word of mouth is the best advertising). See where this path leads?

IF it were to be implemented, and that's a really, really big if, there would need to be a lower limit on the tax scheme. That, of course, leads to questions like, "Who will decide what the best market share is?" and, "Should that share amount change from market to market?"

Now for why the proposed system is fundamentally broken: it effectively prevents new markets from being opened. Take iTunes, for example (I dont use the service myself, but it's something the /. crowd can understand easily). Apple opened up an entirely new market with this service (to be honest, there were companies doing this long before Apple, I remember hearing about it back in '98, but Apple made it into a feasible market by bringing in masses of new customers).

When it started, Apple had about 99% market share. By your model, they should be charged 99% tax because they have a monopoly on this new market. Obviously, no company would want to open a new market like that, lest they be smited with over taxation.

So make it a case-by-case process, right? Then we encounter extreme backups and massive amounts of red tape, along with accusations (some not unfounded) of discriminatory taxation.

Just because an idea is clever doesn't make it right or fully thought through.

That is a foolish idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft isn't the first corp to be on the top of the world. Times change, attitudes change. There is no way to say that microsoft will always be here, at least not in the form that they are now. Microsoft's products weren't always the dominate software, there is no reason to assume they always will be.

Having said nothing important, I'll now go read the article.

Re:What about by a well-placed highly skilled snip

[MrNonchalant]

"Bill Gates will again turn his corporate supertanker and add full power, but this time the competing ship will not only have a head start, it will be able to accelerate faster than Microsoft."

At that point Microsoft buys the other ship.

Re:MS committing suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is if Longhorn isn't secure out of the box they will be. That means no open services binding to interfaces other than 127.0.0.1. Whilst this won't kill them outright people are now starting to learn just how fundamental some of the problems with windows are and just how futile it is to try and keep a system up to date on a dial up modem.

This is also a problem with other operating systems. To show the validity of your comments, there are many people in my town who have had to ask friends in other states to send them a CD of macos x updates,

So far, the largest update has been around 80MB. For people here, where there is no DSL, no Cable, satellite if you're insanely rich, and getting a connection above 33.6k is HIGHLY unlikely, you just don't go download 80MB. The closest apple centre (which will burn for free, apparently) is 3 and a half hours away. So what do people do? Sit on the older release and just keep using.

So when the point comes that larger security holes that desperately need patching come up, there will always be many thousands of people worldwide in the same situation who simply CANNOT update their systems.

While they can't update with an 80MB update (and these are just going to get bigger and bigger) they'll be still just as vulnerably to a 30kb virus/worm/trojan/whatever as anyone else out there.

And security will still suck, until it's done right first time

what are you mods thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Although the smartest reader's insight may or may not be a good solution, your criticism of it is certainly not good. When you graduate with your econ degree you'll enter into a world of progressive income taxation. According to your theory your incentive will now be to not try and increase your income because that will increase your taxation.

Instead of turning down increases in your salary outright, if you want to donate them to me I'm sure we can work something out.

Your post glosses so much that is complex about taxation and incentives and comes to such a simple-minded and obviously wrong conclusion that I'm not going to address those other issues.

Re:MS committing suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is if Longhorn isn't secure out of the box they will be.

Insecurity sure seems to have hurt their bottom line greatly in the past.

Re:A better idea...

[BenjyD]

From the article:

Some have even said that venture capital people are tending to avoid software companies '...because Microsoft will pull a Netscape on you."

MS have shown again and again that they are prepared to do pretty much anything, even break the law, to prevent competitors getting a foothold. How can some company running in a garage compete with that?

Re:A better idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

But Billy boy didn't have a monopolistic company watching and waiting in the wings with enough money to squash him using dubious/illegal business practices and get away with it.

Re:capitalism--monopolies

[Anonymous Coward]

"As long as you keep introducing good products, have good marketing, have a lot of capital, keep trying hard, and/or have good employees, you will aways dominate."

So which is it?

Their products suck. It's true, no matter how much the M$ Certified suckers might scream.

Their marketing is straight from the Heinrich Himmler school of Social Development.

They DO have an awful lot of capital.

Their employees? You mean Steve Ballmer? Or does somebody besides Bill and Steve work at M$? Not that we've ever heard of anyway.

So it's money then...

Re:death by assumption

[l0ungeb0y]

"MS's products have only gotten better, especially over the past 2-3 years."

That's a statement of praise for MS fulfilling basic expectations. Of course it's better.

What I am referring to is yesterdays announcement of the cutting of many features from longhorn-leghorn which shows that they are having some MAJOR problems with Windows development.

Consider their marketing hype over .Net that they publicly announced Blackbird (longhorn) in 2000 as the pure .NET Windows OS. Managers bought into .Net because MS hyped all these nifty things that were in the works for OS's after XP. So 6 years since that announcement they will still be without the full meal deal on .NET as advertised... And even saying it could take a decade to deliver some of these things they hyped longhorn over. think that might make some major customers look elsewhere for a server/client solution? And what happens when it's shown that Longhorn-leghorn is just as insecure as XP especially after all that "security is job 1" crap that the Gatester huffed about?

Re:the dark side

[Wudbaer]

And that would be how ? Enlighten us !

Re:Disagree, this assumes they fail playing catchu

[eclectro]

In every one of these cases they caught up before the rest of the market could do anything about them.

I wouldn't call it catchup. What I would call it is leveraging a monopoly position to force a product (that's often inferior i.g. outlook express) onto customers whether they like it or not.

That's what they did with the browser by integrating it deeply with the OS. That's what they are trying to do with the media player.

Standard oil tried to do it with refineries and railroads. The movie companies tried to do it by owning the movie theatres.

The only difference between now and then is that then politicians had enough spine to stand up against it, and take action that would promote meaningful change.

It is questionable if the EUs recent actions will be effective because the fine, as large as it is, represents a very small part of Microsoft's fortune that they can afford to pay.

I do not see anything on the horizon that would change their current business practices.

Wow

[cubicledrone]

Only mentioned Apple twice. Is anyone paying any attention to what Apple is accomplishing? OS X is incredible. The G5 workstations are incredible. iTunes is beyond incredible. iPod, Apple stores, Cinema Displays, iPhoto, Powerbook, GarageBand, Keynote, etc. etc.

How much more does one company have to accomplish? What was the last really cool product Microsoft made?

FOSS underestimated?

[madchris]

I think Mr. Cringley underestimates the long term power of an open and easily shared computing environment. I just tried Mandrake 10 out for a few days. Mandrakesoft has pulled itself out of bankrupcy (not easily done these days). Other Linux distros are shining brightly too. I think Microsoft should be very worried.

Empires always crumble.

[Tanaka]

Empires always crumble, with no exception. It's just a matter of time. Like the Buddhist philosophy, nothing lasts forever; change is inevitable. Sandcastles can only be built so high.

The free market

[Maskirovka]

Ultimately the free market will control Microsoft. Those companies out there that fear them- IBM, Sun, Apple, Nokia, Sony, HP, etc will keep them in check. Those, and governments helping out their domestic software industry.

Complaining about Sun giving up it's principles is pointless- they are a business. Their sole purpose is to make money. And for $2kkk they probably got their money's worth given the circumstances.

Re:What about by a well-placed highly skilled snip

[Anonymous Coward]

> How can you stop or strike down something that is largely unaffected by large wads of cash?

Patents, copyrights, lawsuits: Microsoft's three weapons against open source.

1: Patents - Target the programmers or companies supporting Open Source by patenting as many basic technologies as possible then ensuring that the Open Source community cannot use them without a license from Microsoft (this stuffs all software released under the GPL).

2: Copyrights - Claiming copyright infringement (even where none exist) - Sony did a good job of this one against BLEEM a couple of years ago: basically the cost of the legal action can soak up all your funds before you have finished defending yourself.

3: Legal Threats - (a variation on 2): Threatening individual programmers with legal action citing patents/copyrights infringements as the main reason.

Could YOU afford to defend yourself?

Ever notice?

[cubicledrone]

Nobody ever really discusses computers? Notice how the media almost never has a story on the real details of Linux, Mac, Windows, Sun, Java, .NET, etc., even though hundreds of millions of people use computers every single day?

Some of the most entertaining television or radio is when a host detects that an interview/conversation is starting to become detailed and interesting (read: technical terms being used), and they raise their voice/interrupt/babble/act like a complete asshole/try to make it an unfunny joke in order to return the conversation to stupidity-land.

Part of the problem is the inability of society to think about something for more than a few moments, and also to "glaze over" (which is a bullshit excuse) whenever technical details are discussed.

Re:Not Easy

[GrassMunk]

I think thats the scariest part though. I've always liked the 'If OSS is outlawed then only the outlaws will have linux' or somesuch. But to be honest i dont want to find myself getting arrested at your borders for having linux on my laptop. I think the future wont be innovation in MS's court but rather legislation in MS' favour. I mean HOW much more can they add to Office? Office Longhorn: The buttons are green now! C'mon. No one needs Office 2003 but if MS put even the MOST trivial copyprotection in the format ( ROT15 say ) and you circumvented it. BAM! DMCA violation, say hello to your new 'Pound-you-in-the-ass' bunk mate Spike. The future may be bright for OSS but there ain't no 'GNU Government'. Unfortunately.

Re:hsdsafsdg

[DrSkwid]

That patently can't be true.
MS warezing didn't sgtop them reaching the dominant position, how do you think it would topple them?

Imagine a world where 100% of computers ran windows & office but 90% of those MS installations was warezed. How would that represent a toppling of MS's dominant position?

Re:Microsoft will die in the PC OS Market. (imho)

[BasilBrush]

But in all these non-PC markets you mention, Microsoft is finding it tough going. Apple's beating them in music, Sony is beating them in consoles, Palm is beating them in PDAs, Symbian in phones, the PVR market is still very competitive, but Microsof tisn't leading there either, nor is the WMC attempt to move in to TVs doing well.

Not only is Microsoft not the market leader in any of them, they are losing money on them all too.

I'd actually say that the opposite is more arguable. Linux is very promising (and cheap) as an embedded OS for these kinds of devices. To get widespread use there is actually easier than getting Linux on the desktop. The device manufacturers care enough to look at alternatives, and compatibility with existing software is less of a problem. Most desktop users don't care, and have an existing library of Windows software.

Not that I'm saying Linux won't get there - they certainly have plenty of opportunities for desktops in governments, education and some industries and enterprises.

Next innovation outside US?

[tehanu]

Cringely makes some good comments. One thing I can think of though, if as he says MS manages to kill off its competitors in the US (or bashes them to tame submission) and the software industry in the US as a whole is paralysed because investors are afraid of the "Netscape effect" when MS notices your niche and decides to compete with you - it may be possible that the next leap in innovation he thinks that will kill MS may come outside of the US. If MS suffocates the US software industry the next big innovation will have to come outside of the US. Which means that the hub of the software industry may end up moving out of the US into probably Asia - maybe China or India. And then the job losses we see in the US IT industry now would be nothing compared to what would happen then...

Re:The Only Way Microsoft Can Die is by Suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

"So is there anything we can do to help?"

Check that the cost of the last virus cleanup is included in the costing estimates when each department "upgrades" their Microsoft operating system?

Re:Disagree, this assumes they fail playing catchu

[jmbr]

It's not 'playing catchup' really. It's a strategy: wait until someone else creates a market which is larger than the first couple of tech-people. Once it hits a majority of 'normal' users get in and take over. It's risky, but if you have enough money you don't have to take the risks of R&D and trying out if people like your new stuff. Sometimes they're a bit late (xbox, etc.) but it's the same idea, they see the market is ready and is of importance so they enter it without having to create the market.

A reminder for Cringely...

[inode_buddha]

At one point in time, IBM was the megacorp that Microsoft is now. The thing that caused them to change was economic forces; having near-monopoly control became relatively more expensive as new unit sales dropped. The only difference I can see with Microsoft is that they have the OEM's and EOL'd some of their products much soomer than IBM would. I don't think that's going to last forever though; consumers already don't like the licensing or the EOL's and the financial pressure will eventually be reflected back through the OEM's and directed at Microsoft. After all, they have to have at least some profit margin. Just an idea.

Re:Disagree, this assumes they fail playing catchu

[lseltzer]

How can you be wrong on every one of these?

>>1. MSFT ignoring TCP IP, saying it is inferior to NetBIOS as well as charging a small fortune for a minimal add-on IP Stack ported from BSD. That was only 10 years ago. They caught up on this one

Where did this come from? TCP/IP on Windows NT (starting in 92 at least) was a core part of the OS. I specifically remember that TCP/IP for Win 3.x was free. WTF are you talking about?

>>2. Same with browsers - IE 3.0 was nothing but mosaic repackaged. It took them less then 2 years to catch up.

IE 1.0 fits this description, but IE 3.0 had CSS in it for heaven's sake! It had ActiveX controls and Netscape plug-ins. It was way more than (Spyglass) Mosaic.

>>3. Mail clients - I still remember the days when Pegasus and Eudora were the de-facto corporate standards as far as Email on windows is concerned. 3 years to get from 0% market share to 90%+ market share.

Back when this could possibly have been true the corporate standards on Windows were cc:Mail and Netware-based products. Eudora and Pegasus have never actually had any meaningful market share.

>>4. Microsoft ignoring wireless, thin clients, etc.

Ignoring Wireless? They built it in to Windows XP. How long before that could they have been "ignoring" it? Every wireless vendor ever (except Apple) has released Windows support for their products. And Microsoft has had their own thin client product since the mid-90's.

understand the competition...article

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting article ... http://www.directionsonmicrosoft.com/Top10Challeng esFor2004.html TOP Challenges for 2004

Microsoft's Top 10 Challenges for 2004


1. Managing a maturing company in a maturing industry

Microsoft's decision to offer a dividend is subtle recognition that the company is operating in a maturing industry where both hardware and software upgrade cycles are lengthening and growth rates slowing. It has become harder and harder for Microsoft to introduce updates that offer compelling new value and customers perceive many older products such as Office 97 as simply "good enough." At the same time, customers are more reliant on Microsoft software than ever before--so reliant that a software failure such as a rampant virus infection can have a greater business impact than an extended power outage or a loss of telephone service. Customers are placing a greater value on making sure systems they already have run reliably, and less value on new products and capabilities.

Microsoft's challenge is to adopt business models and business processes that reflect these realities. However, despite all the signs of a maturing marketplace, "Microsoft still has the same basic business model as it did in the 1990's--a model that is largely predicated on creating software grand slams that compel customers to upgrade." says Paul DeGroot, Lead Analyst, Sales & Support Strategies at Directions on Microsoft. That is the reason why so much more development resources are being poured into Windows Longhorn compared to service packs for existing products such as Windows XP and Windows 2003--efforts that are arguably more in demand by customers than Longhorn. "With the largest installed base of any software company, Microsoft is in an enviable position. But, short of selling customers on product upgrades, Microsoft hasn't found an effective way to convert that huge installed base advantage into a steady revenue stream," explains DeGroot.

2. Security, Security, Security New security vulnerabilities in Microsoft products are discovered on regular basis, and thwarting hackers requires customers to evaluate, download, deploy, and install a steady stream of software patches--a complex and time-consuming process. And, by the admission of Microsoft CFO John Connors in the most recent quarterly earnings report, security issues are hurting Microsoft's bottom line by redirecting IT resources that might otherwise be spent on evaluating and deploying the latest generation of Microsoft products and technologies.

Currently, Microsoft's patch-management technologies and processes are themselves a patchwork. For example, various product groups use different patch formats and installers, and patch test and release processes differ across groups. The result? The presence of some patches can be reliable detected, others cannot; some patches can be uninstalled, others can't; some patches require reboot, others don't; Windows patches are available from one site, Office patches from another; and some patches subsequently require patches themselves, revealing inadequate testing. Furthermore, many of the company's patch update technologies don't work well for the many consumers on dial-up connections, who simply don't have sufficient bandwidth to download megabytes and megabytes worth of patches.

Significant progress has been made in 2003 and the company has made a strong commitment to improve the security situation in 2004. "Microsoft knows exactly what it needs to do to improve the security of its products. The main challenge is one of discipline--enforcing a consistent set of patch technologies and procedures across traditionally independent product groups," said Michael Cherry, Lead Analyst, Operating Systems at Directions on Microsoft.

etc...(see rest of article)

Re:What about by a well-placed highly skilled snip

[trewornan]

1: Patents - Target the programmers or companies supporting Open Source by patenting as many basic technologies as possible then ensuring that the Open Source community cannot use them without a license from Microsoft (this stuffs all software released under the GPL).

Try to enforce their patents against Linux and IBM would enforce their patents against MS. MS couldn't write a line of code without infringing some IBM patent (not that I think this is a good thing).

2: Copyrights - Claiming copyright infringement (even where none exist) - Sony did a good job of this one against BLEEM a couple of years ago: basically the cost of the legal action can soak up all your funds before you have finished defending yourself.

Might have worked if they hadn't chosen such a half-assed frontman (SCO) and warned the OSS world of the danger. Everyone is being more careful now.

3: Legal Threats - (a variation on 2): Threatening individual programmers with legal action citing patents/copyrights infringements as the main reason.

Shown to be ineffective unless there is some substantial grounds behind your threats (SCO).

an answer?

[WiPEOUT]

Governments the world over can do something about Microsoft, if they so choose to. It's quite simple, and some have already taken the first steps: adopt Open Source software built to open standards.

Microsoft is only as powerful as it is because it's software is ubiquitous. Governments are probably the only entities in the world capable of mandating the necessary changes to:

a) require the use of open-source software that implements open standards unencumbered by patents and proprietary technologies

b) force other entities it deals with to ensure electronic interactions are compatible with the open standards this requires

Of course, it takes decidedly forward-thinking and egalitarian politicians to venture down this road. However, the benefits to their nation(s) would be significant, including higher Balance of Trade (no MS tax to pay), bolstering the local IT industry, and simultaneously reducing the influence of Microsoft nationally and internationally. It's also a self-fulfilling prophecy, insofar as the first governments to do this can find themselves in a position where they literally lead the world in terms of IT years down the track.

Notice this is a possibility, but there's no kidding myself here that this would be easy to achieve.

I'm usually a fan of Cringely...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a tough guy and generally has the power to detect novel trends and to summarize converging events.

Just now, I guess he's too much inserted in his surrounding reality. His vision, at least in this case, is of a typical north-american (i.e., USian or Canadian). It almost is like that guy who said the Titanic was unsinkable.

Come on, forget abut M$ itself. How long do you think the US will be allowed such an exclusive domination in the IT world? I'm not talking about Politics here, just about Economics. This is totally unacceptable from an economic POV. For this to work, M$ should be slashing prices everywhere (and not just in a few Asian countries).

If you slash prices, so must be done with costs -- and here comes outsourcing into play. Other countries (like India) become IT-proficient, the rest is like the auto-industry.

It is happening now, with that China-Japan-Korea OS agreement. And it would happen without Linux!

We need public education.

[jellomizer]

The Major part of the problem is the way people are educated in computers. They are shown Windows, Word, Excell, Power Point. Once they are proficient at them then they are labeled Computer Literate. The real trick is to change the educational system to teach computers more fairly and balanced. Sure they can use Use MS Office and Windows. But don't bother teaching them how to use Word teach them how to use Word Processors, all of them are about the same A button is here vs. there or use alt b to make something bold or sometimes it is ctrl-b or open apple b. Show them how to figure things out for themselves how to check the menu bars to see what features are available. What commonalities are between systems. If someone is computer literate they should be able to be productive on GUI and not be afraid of the CLI, I am not saying we should teach them how to compile things, or program, or understand all the administration needs, but allow them to find a program and run it because they are comfortable with the controls that they give.
For schools I would recommend that they actually have apple hardware with virtual PC. With W2k, WXP, And one of the friendlier Linux distribution installed. So that way they can get their hands on 99% of the environments (In usability Linux is extremely similar to other Unixes so a Linux install will help with the unix ones too). Now these people will have their feet wet with other OS's and then can make informed decisions on what OS they really like the best. And yes some of them will choose Microsoft products but other will choose the others as their favorite depending on how they think and they work. I don't care if Microsoft goes out of business or not, I just want people to realize that there are different tools for different jobs and using these tools isn't wrong.

Re:There is another way for MS to die...

[utahjazz]

Note that your article is dated 1999. Microsoft no longer grants options to employees, it grants actual shares, and it lists those grants in it's balance sheet.

Anyway, it's kind of physically impossible for granted options to spell doom for a company, since the instruments become unusable if the company's stock falls below the strike price. For the options to be a liability, the company has to be doing well.

Indeed, the main reason they switched to granting shares is that many employees were grumbling that their options are already worthless, having been granted during the heydey times of a few years ago.

Force Microsoft to open up windows API's

[mangojuice]

The only way to enable true competition would be to force Microsoft to open up all of their windows API's, and allow the emerging of an open source Windows. Once there will be a free OS that runs all the windows-apps people have become acquainted with, they *will* be using it. And they will become aware of Open Source in general. It's then up to microsoft to develop stuff like WinFS and see if people are willing to pay the extra money for it... Seriously, why can't this be done? Why do governments just keep on fining Microsoft and make up silly punishments (like forbidding shipment of WMP with windows), when there's a solution that's so much more elegant. I for one believe open APIs are the only way to healthy OS-competition.

FUD

[tsukasa137]

My dad's always complaining about pop-up windows in IE, and I just say "Dad, why don't you use Mozilla?"
I've explained Mozilla to him in the past, and he still doesn't use it. Why?
"My business doesn't use Mozilla. I can't use something my business doesn't use."
Same deal with OpenOffice. Nobody else is using it, why should he?

Joe User is just being fooled by Microsoft FUD when it comes to Open-Source. What the open-source community needs is some central point for Microsoft-FUD-dispelling. Just a (professional looking) site that answers Linux questions.

Face it people.. MS has everyone by the balls

[ColumPaget]

I apologise in advance.. this is going to be long ;-)

I think Mr Cringely has a clear view of things.. let me respond to some of the posts here (if I come over a bit opinionated.. please forgive me and put it down to my being an old and bitter IT hack..)

Jin Wicked is quiet right in what she says (that girls got sticking power.. I can remember her being lambasted by slashdotters over something.. but she's still here! ;-) ) in that people want something that is easy to use. But the thing is that microsoft *defines* what is easy to use.

People are educated that the way microsoft products work is how computers work. Anything different is "unfriendly". I work in industrial automation. Many people who work in factories and warehouses cannot handle gui interfaces. The find them too complex. They want to type stuff in all the time! However.. these people are not regular computer users, hence the standard for gui interfaces is defined by office workers all trained that microsoft office is how computers work.
Hence.. anything that is going to compete with ms is going to have to follow the ms look and feel slavishly.. it doesnt matter if doing things in a new funky way is better.. people wont take the time to learn it. They will want to stick with what they know and what they know is microsoft.

But its not just the investment in learning that people have made.. its also.. as Jin points out.. the investments in software. Companies in particular own large amounts of expensive software that runs under ms. If an 'alternative' platform cannot run this software just as well as MS can.. then they arent interested.

People speak of security. I see someone saying that unless longhorn is secure out of the box (it wont be) then microsoft is in trouble. You are wrong. I wish it were so.. but no-one cares about security. No one understands security. Oh.. I'm sure everyone posting and reading on slashdot does. But we are a tiny elite people (an I.. for one.. have always wanted to be part of a tiny elite). Out in the workaday world most people do not know what slashdot is. Many dont really know what linux is and even fewer understand security. For them computers are magic, pure and simple, and I'm not just talking about mom and pop home users here. I'm talking about CORPORATE IT MANAGERS. Of the companies we deal with most have it departments full of 'point and click' it personel. These people might have an MSCE to their name.. but most of their knowledge comes from reading 'PcPlus'. They simply do not understand computers.. but they do so more than the rest of the company, and in the land of the blind..

These people care not one whit about security.. so long as nothing too disasterous happens to their network (and you know.. the amazing thing is.. most of them get away with it.. oh yes, they get hit by worms and viruses frequently.. but they always seem to recover). And as for their unencrypted WiFi networks.. dont get me started.

When longhorn comes out the issues of 'is it pretty' or 'does it have funky features' are vastly more important to its sales than 'is it secure'. People are quite happily using the monstrously insecure MS operating systems currently available.. why should they suddenly start caring with longhorn?

When longhorn comes out companies will be told that their current OS's are no longer supported.. and will race to upgrade to longhorn, as they will have no clear alternative upgrade path available. Their whole way of working will be so based around MS (viruses and all) that they will be quite unable to build an alternative infrastructure.. and they wont have the time anyway, they have a business to run dont forget. Home users may be more reticent.. but the big thing in the home market seems to be games.. and when you upgrade your computer to play the latest games, then you will also get longhorn pre-installed on it.

I see people talking about apple. I dont know if this is because I'm in the UK and things are diffre

Re:Face it people.. MS has everyone by the balls

[aber]

I'm talking about CORPORATE IT MANAGERS. Of the companies we deal with most have it departments full of 'point and click' it personel. These people might have an MSCE to their name.. but most of their knowledge comes from reading 'PcPlus'. They simply do not understand computers.. but they do so more than the rest of the company, and in the land of the blind..

It's a sort of a vicious cicle:

Corporations are forgiving to incompetence if it's disguised as "low risk solutions". In other words (I'm quoting a decision maker here where I work, he's in the IT department on a Fortune 500 company): "You'll never get fired for buying MS." Longhorn will come and will be adopted in my workplace. Even if it causes a catastrophic failure, no one would be fired. "It wasn't anyone's fault, it's those pesky worms and hackers. Nothing we can do about it. Just apply the next SP."

Ah, but if a strong headed person comes, makes some objective decisions that cause changes, and there's any problem, that person will feel the heat, the corporation will be much less forgiving.

The reason for this nonsensical situation is probably known to everyone here. Management, even though it arguably accounts for very little in terms of revenue generation, is still considered the most important part of a company. Techs and geeks tend to care little about management, no chalenge involved, but a lot of PowerPoint slides, buzzwords and catch frases. Who would opt for getting an MBA instead of an MEE or MS? Mostly non-technically inclinded people. But an MBA is a HUGE advantage if you want to make manager.

And to make things even worse, MBAs feel threatened by techs. If challenged, they'll go out of their to prove they're right and techs are wrong, handwaving about "COTs" and "business sense", etc. That completes the circle. And if a tech makes management, he/she will be antagonised at every change they want to effect.

For the record, I know what COT means, but it's often used with little basis on fact.

Coperation != person

[ajrs]

Cringley has made the mistake of confusing Sun, a corporation, with people. Corporations are not people. They 'die' only through negligence or deliberate action. They often don't pay taxes. They do not have principles.

The people who run corporations have principles. They also have an obligation to make money.

The people who own corporations have principles. They also have some money, and want more. If the corporation is publicly traded, it will be owned by other corporations. Again, the ow ning corporations would have no principals.

Two external factors contribute to the principals of a corporation: good will and the law. 'Good will' is the value of the reputation of a company. The law defines specific penalties for specific actions.

A corporation will take a repugnant action when the expected return exceeds the diluted princ ipals of the owners and managers, the perceived cost to good will, any opportunity cost, and the expected legal penalty.

Price = principle + opportunity cost + (good will + (penalty * enforcement ratio))/(getting caught)

The opportunity cost of getting out of a legal battle is usually negative. Settlement, even with Microsoft, can be worth it.

Re:death by assumption

[rsheridan6]

A lot of Mac zealots make the prediction that Macs will bite into MS's market share, but it never seems to happen. And it's not gonna happen - Macs are too expensive, too different from what people already know, and most users don't really give a crap about the advantages Macs offer. They'll outsell Windows about the same time Porsches outsell Camrys.

Re:You nailed that "anti corporate" BS

[richie2000]

I wonder if Microsoft employs people to come in here and moderate or if it's just brainwashing? I mean, people joke about being modded down for defending Microsoft, "after all this is Slashdot, hehehe" and then this post, full of propaganda and lies, gets modded Insightful? WTF, did I surf to Channel 9 by mistake today?

MS got to be market dominant (which is NOT a true monopoly) by making genuinely good programs. For a business-person's definition of good, that is. They work well enough, their cost is reasonable compared to their utility, their faults are known and can be planned around, and the qualified user pool is huge.

Circular reasoning. How did the user pool grow huge unless they already had a monopoly? They cut deals to preload DOS and Windows on computers. All computers. Monopoly.

They hold market dominance solely because it would be uneconomic -- wastefully expensive -- for anyone to replace them.

A total lie. Ecomomics thrive on competition. Monopolies stifle competition and hurts the economy.

The theories of the anti-corp types would see all success dragged low, deliberate waste foisted upon the productive in the name of "fairness", and the result would be economic ruin.

We're not anti-corp, we're anti-monopoly. We'd like to see all success promoted, not only Bill Gates'. If someone else sets up shop, innovates and provides a service that in a working economic system would create prosperity and success, Microsoft either scares them off or buys them out. There are numerous examples of this. Check out Go for one of the most glaring ones - they saw an opportunity to innovate -- Microsoft responded by creating a similar vaporware product, spread FUD and drive them out of the market. The economic value that would have resulted from Go prospering, creating unique customer value and success was wasted . Deliberately wasted by none other than Bill Gates himself. IBM used to be the big bad boy, but they learned how to behave responsibly in the marketplace and play by the rules. Why can't Microsoft?

Microsoft is a monopoly. They own the desktop.

Re:hsdsafsdg I have a solution to kill microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Well there is a very simple way to get rid of the MS monopoly once and for all ...(door knocks) hang on wait a minute while I answer the door... ....yes Mr Gates sir, I'd love a research position paying 200,000 dollars a year, based anywhere I'd like? OK then.

Anyway, what was I saying...Oh err never mind.

Re:Disagree, this assumes they fail playing catchu

[Henk Poley]

>>4. Microsoft ignoring wireless, thin clients, etc.

Ignoring Wireless? They built it in to Windows XP. How long before that could their have been "ignoring" it? Every wireless vendor ever (except Apple) has released Windows support for their products. And Microsoft has had their own thin client product since the mid-90's.

The parent poster probably wanted to point to they ignorance over mobile wireless solutions. Never wondered why you need a thirdparty program to make use of bluetooth under Windows? Especialy since he also mentions thin clients etc.

Under basicly every other networked OS you can use the same computer simulatiously via remote login. (Yes yes, there are products and hacks that add that to Windows NT/2k/XP too)

Microsoft doesn't want people to see their PC+Windows as a center to their computer system, they want full blown Windows on every device. Why else didn't they promote their wireless remote-desktop handheld LCDs more?

Re:The Only Way Microsoft Can Die is by Suicide

[rtaylor]

... book an hour on the timesheet to "reading EULAs" each time you install software on a new machine.

But how can a techie hope to understand legalese? That stuff should be sent to the legal department for their approval prior to installation.

They'll read it, and will be sure to report up the food chain what $$$ making capabilities they've lost as a result of paragraph 56.

Why would we want Microsoft to die?

[Shivetya]

I think its pretty downright stupid to want Microsoft to collapse. People who put forth this idea need to have their heads examined.

Open source is not in any position to compete in the marketplace simply because it is not ready. Quit showing immaturity by wishing Microsoft to fail, bringing them down isn't going to make Open source or free software any better.

You want to beat Microsoft, fine, quit making neat things and start making real applications that do what users want and not what geeks want. Users are the primary market and Microsoft knows exactly how to cater to them.

The OS community is a pretty nice group but you would never know that from reading /.

Linux is the Garage

[NotWallaceStevens]

Linux may not be the answer. But Linux is the garage from which the answer will come. Skill, luck, imagination, and business sense will combine in some currently unknown way to slap MS down to the second-rate position it deserves. Cringely used to wax nostalgic about nerds in garages. Well Bob, grab Knoppix, and take a look at what's going on in the garage.

Cringley's just plain wrong

[Moderation abuser]

When faced with an overwhelmingly superior opponent, you don't face them head on. You destroy their supply trains, you attack their soft targets and when they try to strike back, you are never, ever where they think you are.

This pretty much describes how free software in general works in the market, it's very much guerilla business. Nothing else survives against MS, not Netscape, not Real and not any company who think they can stand up in front of them and try to make a profit.

When it comes to law suits, Microsoft have by giving Sun 2 billion dollars, opened the gates to more such law suits. A billion here, a billion there and suddenly 50 billion dollars doesn't look like so much.

The sharks are circling and the way Microsoft will die is by a thousand bites.

Optimism misplaced

[mankey wanker]

Cringley wants to end on a good note by suggesting that somewhere along the line something will happen and Microsoft will be too large to compete with some probably tiny but very agile rival.

That won't happen for the very reasons he spends most of the article enumerating. MS is hugely powerful at this point. MS is vastly wealthy. As Cringely probably correctly notes: MS can compete for a period of *YEARS* with others while making absolutely zero profit. Just let that one sink in a moment.

When thinking about these issues people make some common mistakes.

One of them is to mistakenly identify a corporation with having the exact same sorts of rights as do natural persons - and they don't! Corporations are fictitious persons that are legally created entities with specific benefits and obligations - those benefits and obligations are whatever we as a body politic write into the laws governing the creation of corporations. If any single corporation gets to a point where its practices are so anticompetitive and monopolistic that nothing but control after control must be implemented to stop it - then so be it. The corporation is not a natural person, we can do that.

The other mistake is to think that a corporate entity like Microsoft can be challenged by a few weirdo geniuses in a garage somewhere building some kind of "MS-killing" product. That won't happen either. Why not? Look at the history of Apple computers - that seemingly small and nimble rival has failed to take away from MS any significant market share. I'm not knocking Apple - to the contrary, I'm saying they make an objectively better product. But that doesn't matter. Read it again, because that's the big problem right there: it doesn't matter that a competitor has already produced a machine that is better! [N.B. This is a possibly subjective argument because lots of people will now argue issues like Apple's price point, whether it really is better, etc.] Microsoft's monopoly status has largely prevented Apple from gaining market share (and thereby also dropping its prices because of what is recovered by volume sales, putting huge profits into further innovation, etc).

A third problem is that people always make the error of thinking that large monopolistic corporations are necessary for technological advancment. Obviously, one could write a book about this subject, but in the main I'd suggest that the claim is simply false. Many things move forward incrementally because of research in numerous fields. Who might have suspected that Xerox might be investigating revolutionary ideas in computer technologies (as related to photocopy machines??!!!) but that those ideas could best be exploited by a then relatively small company called Apple Computers. Don't forget that *ONE* scientist had a dream about the structure of DNA. Sometimes all you need is one Einstein to keep moving things forward for a really long time - an no team of really bright physicists equals one Einstein.

Someone else has already made a comparison to Walmart, but it's worth repeating. These huge monopolies have more political pull and economic gravity than do most governments (amongst which I would personally include that tiny one we call the United States). To ignore that fact is supreme folly. We'll all end up working for corporations as our literal masters if we are not careful.

We have to take these HUGE corporate players out of the game, not just bench them or pretend they even give a shit about some weeny penalty they may have to pay. The way the business game works now is that the penalties are worked into the price of doing business any way they damn well please. Once you understand that, you will get the problem.

Re:Windows/Solaris Hybrid OS.

[kalidasa]

Do you remember the disaster that happened the last time Microsoft tried to collaborate with an industry partner on a new OS? The OS/2 / NT fork. If this is really what Sun has in mind, they aren't learning from history.

Re:Insidious

[pommiekiwifruit]

Think of it as being the successor to the subject known as "typing" rather than "applied maths".

Re:The Only Way Microsoft Can Die is by Suicide

[brwski]

Has anyone actually tried this? Have the legal departments actually read the EULAs for their *own* boxen?

Perhaps a little enlightenment of legal would cause Corporate America to scream and cower under their desks---for about ten minutes before they order all the computers in the company wiped...

Re:The reason they will not die...from a Windows u

[NotInTheBox]

I believe that the reason that Apple is still around is mainly to do with their control over their own hardware, and as the article points out the real treat to Microsoft will never be a software-only thing.

Most likely a few years in the future some chinees firms will think of a cheap and useful mobile gizmo, which will represent for many people all they really need. Think collaboration tool. Apple will make a usable version and others will see it and try to do the same (like always?).

Because most business data and applications are fast becoming web based (the new word for good old client-server) the desktop will become less important and after a while people will not upgrade their desktops anymore but buy in to the new market.

Microsoft will keep dominating the desktop market forever... it's just that the desktop market will not last very long and will be replaced in the next decade. The desktop is irrelevant.

If Microsoft is swift they will still be around, taking a page out of Apples book and produce a beter usable devices and such. Apple will most likely hang on and continue to lead in design and innovation; just not in market share.

The future is not the desktop; its tabs, pads, and boards. Even Microsoft knows that.

Re:You nailed that "anti corporate" BS

[kalidasa]

MS got to be market dominant (which is NOT a true monopoly) by making genuinely good programs

Out of curosity, how old are you, and how long have you been using small / personal computers?

Oh, I'd say he's about 49 years old and has been using personal computers since 1981.

The only people who deny that Microsoft is a monopoly are Microsoft itself or its apologists. You can make the argument that the web browser SHOULD be part of the OS - after all, that's what Netscape was thinking at one point, to build a platform on the browser, and Mozilla has a good start in that direction - and you can make arguments against a number of the other cases that lead to the monopoly judgment; but you can't dismiss them all. Microsoft is a monopoly which has illegally leveraged that monopoly to drive competition out of most of the markets they've targeted. Those are the findings of fact produced by Penfield Jackson, a judge who was cherry-picked by MS after they claimed the previous judge, Daniel Sporkin, was biased against them; and then, of course, when Jackson judge ordered a break-up, Microsoft successfully got him dismissed for defending his ruling before the pro-Microsoft business press, helping Microsoft to stall the case long enough for a pro-MS administration to come in and pull the prosecution's fangs - as Jackson actually predicted (see the com.com link above)!

If the monopoly ruling had been used to enforce the imposition of standard formats for a handful of document types, to force MS to release their flagship applications for competing platforms, or best of all to divorce the applications product line from the platform product line via a break-up, we might see for all aspects of computing a degree of integration similar to what the web provides (common protocols that promote and ensure interoperability). Instead, we have hydraulic despotism - the entire world economy is beholden to Bill Gates' whims, because the only way a company can interoperate effectively with its corporate partners is through Microsoft on the desktop, and Microsoft on the desktop doesn't interoperate well with anything other than Microsoft on the network, except where Microsoft's competitors have made heroic efforts toward interoperability.

Re:Insidious

[bluGill]

Don't worry too much about the software. When I was in high school we were taught WordPerfect because that is what business used. Don't see that around, yet most of my classmates have adopted.

I'd more worry that they are teaching your kids to make terrible presentations, than that they are teaching any particular software.

The man is not an intellectual.

[Captain McCrank]

The smartest reader of all suggested that companies be taxed on their market share so that a company like Microsoft with 90 percent share would pay a 90 percent tax rate. The nice part about this idea is that it actually would encourage competition as well as industry alliances. The naive part is that it assumes legislative resolve that does not exist and also assumes Microsoft actually pays taxes which, for the most part, it doesn't. Still, the idea is clever.

How can anyone take Cringley or PBS seriously? He is actually suggesting all incentive for market success should be eliminated. I'd love to see Cringley present an argument for how this economic model would work. Perhaps we should move to Twinkies as our currency soon after putting a Success Tax of 90% in place. Play some Sim City and see how well this works if you don't understand how disastrous an idea this is.

I usually like controversial people because they at least bring an interesting element to a discussion- but Cringley no longer is in the group that I enjoy. Intellectually, he's wasting everyone's time if he thinks this idea is the "smartest." Chairman Mao is in his glass case, waiting for your next visit, Cringley.

Why is this a bad thing?

[mattgreen]

Microsoft's lifespan only ensures that Slashdot will forever be active and that everyone will forever have something to bitch and cry about. Meanwhile we can have "Linux is heading for the desktops!" articles once every month like we do right now.

In other words, its business like usual! That's what we all want! :)

Re:Cringly is right

[sabat]

Microsoft is a business, it isn't run by a bunch of geeks, it is run buy a bunch of geeky businessmen who plan for the future. Business is war and cash reserves are ammunition. Microsoft is laying plans for war against all, including open source. It is good business practice.

It is not good business practice. That's why we have laws against such behavior. If the government wasn't being run by gangs of corrupt criminals, Microsoft would be split up already, and regulation on baby MSs as widespread as the dandruff on Bill Gates' shoulders.

Part of the reason MS gets away with what it does is because it's able to Orwell the masses. "It's just good business practice to destroy all competition so it can continue to sell its mediocre upgrades" -- what a crock. And yet even some Slashdotters believe it now. Good business, my friend, means true innovation, changing the world, stirring the marketplace up, genuinely out-doing your competitors. MS should be succeeding because its ideas are so good, not because it has so much money, power, and viciousness that no one can stop it.

Re:The Only Way Microsoft Can Die is by Suicide

[general_re]

Just declare all copyrights from Microsoft alone unenforceable. It's all basicly a premature end to the life of copyright and patent from a specific company.

The term you're looking for is "bill of attainder", and it's specifically forbidden by Article I, Section 9 of the US constitution. Let's try not to knife the Constitution in our haste to do in Microsoft, hmmm?

Modes of suicide

[BINC]

1. Arrogance, including manipulation of customers, disdain for torpid judicial processes, etc. This mode misestimates human hubris when pushed.
2. Greed. So Mr. Gates' cash stash is to carry the company through 5 years of zero sales: does he have the buy-in of the stockholders on that? The monoplists of the last century had the great advantage of personal ownership of their enterprises.
3. Self-delusion: believing own truthspeak, e.g. that embracing and expropriating others' innovatons is innovation.
4. Narcissism: the thought that everyone else is a reflection of oneself and thinks like oneself or can be made to so think. E.g., in this case, that all competitors are driven by the same cravings as Microsoft.
5. Egocentrism: the thought that the world revolves around oneself, and all users, students, universities, hardware manufacturers, governments, etc., have no independence but inherently so revolve.
6. Hierarchy: the thought that the whole of society is composed of master/slave power relationships and no equality, independence, or voluntary conferacy can exist.
"Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad."

After Bill?

[RoadkillBunny]

I just wonder if Microsoft will be too successful after Bill Gates and Ballmer die. Well, unless they bribe the devil...

That flexibility thing...

[saihung]

Good point. The old steel companies have been complaining for decades that they can't compete, that they need tarriffs and gub'ment subsidies, and here comes this upstart company that is basically running circles around them. What the old steel mills really meant was that they couldn't compete doing business the way they'd always had, and they were too big, old, and slow to think their way out. So we, the taxpayers, rewarded them for being stupid and inflexible, when we thought they were competing efficiently but still losing thanks to the big bad foreigners. Stupid them, but even stupid(er) us.

What nonsense - sun haven't thrown in the towel

[Decaff]

Usual Cringley nonsense. Sun haven't given up on anything. They get access to MS APIs. They get billions of dollars. Why? They agreed to an out of court settlement from Microsoft, which Microsoft wanted as a way of trying to look good so as to calm down the Europeans.

Sun won. They sued Microsoft and got paid by them.

Compatibility issues create inertia

[tepples]

Each one of those people will now, never buy a copy of MS Office.

Unless the user discovers that OO.o cannot interpret the complex formulas and macros in Excel documents from work. Even if OO.o's macro system does turn out to be more powerful in the long run, it's not compatible with Microsoft's, and many companies have found that conversion of the scripts would cost even more than several years of Licensing 6. There needs to be some way to get work to use OO.o instead of Microsoft Office in the first place. Such inertia is why many critics claim that free software needs to be groundbreaking in order to displace even 20 percent of proprietary desktop software published by a convicted monopolist.

People's Beliefs

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe there are so many posts that completely miss the mark. The problem is not Linux, the problem is not a lack of understanding. I'm sorry, it is apathy (as one of the first posters said) and more.

Why do you drink coca-cola? It tastes better at 4 times the cost? No. Because everyone else does it.

Why do you eat McDonalds? Because it's everywhere else? No. Because everyone else does it.

People want to do what everyeone else does - because by our very natures we are pack animals. We all believe that everyone else uses Microsoft, so we do.

This has added benefits. We belong (to what, I don't know). We can learn from others who think/act the same way. We work together in what ever we do as a society. These are the things that define us as humans.

The fact is, we will continue to be pack animals. Live in cities, wear our Reboks, drink our coca-cola and use Microsoft. Not because we can't think, or that these things are better - but because a) we just don't care [it does the job] and b) we belong.

You can make up all of the horse shit excuses under the sun - usability, better taste, better quality, better marketing, does what I want it to do - but at the end of the day, Joe average wants more than anything to belong.

Re:The Computer industry is flawed

[waveclaw]

Joe doesn't know any local linux geeks that'll come fix something for a 6 pack of Duff

Maybe if he tried offering Gunniess instead, he would get a better reception?

Oh come on, it's not like you haven't sat down with $RELATIVE_FROM_USA to fix $COMPUTER_PROBLEM and been offered something like crudwiser. Ick.

Refined tastes on technology need not imply a favoritism to non-domestic American beverages. But this is an important facet of software that people leave out: culture.

I view that whole problem with software is not about the number of machines installed. The problem is about people, attitudes and perceptions.

I feel that addressing the difference of community will be the single most challenging task facing popular adoption of tools like Linux. The OS installed on a user's computer is a choice of that user. It is up to you to change that user's attitude. They will put up with horrid quality when they don't know of a better alternative.

In my opinion culture clash between 'Joe Sixpack Windows-User' and everybody else is dramatic. Both the Apple and $FREE_OS communities like to view themselves as fringe or special groups. They celebrate their difference from the mainstream. Pure and unadulterated Windows users form a different community than the users of Apple or $FREE_OS products. They belive the tools they have work and work adequately. The common users are people who are sufficiently content with their pre-packaged choice to not look outside the beige box. Due to bad practices by Microsoft, they also form the largest community of individual personal computer users.

It has been said that the I.Q. of a group is the lowest I.Q. of the members of the group divided by the number of members of that group (think communication overhead when talking with slow people.) Fortunately for the 'Aunt Tillies' of the world, individual users can have quite a solid grasp of basic computer skills. Unfortunately, confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance imply a lot of ineria.

While 'Aunt Tillie, CTO/CFO' grasps software quality, their grasp may be of the level of the average car buyer. This is a person who only needs to know about various cars during the rare purchase of a car. In the M$ dominated media of software boxes at your local $MEGA_MART, communicating the benefits of something like Linux or Apple over Microsoft products will require overcoming the established noise level of $ billions in marketing

This is why Microsoft is 50% marketing. This is why commercial Linux distributions are a Good Thing. This is why Apple is still here. The best hackers of the world have been excellent social engineers before anything else. It's time to put that 'social' part to a very good use.

Social engineering of the common man to want quality in software, rather than just settling for third best is possible. After helping run a student organization for Linux users for a few years, I have seen remarkable progress in the quality of various distributions. However, problems with GUI's, driver availability and application compatibility are but small technical hurdles that can be solved with adequate coding.

If you care about software quality then talk to you neighbor. Show off your computers. Maybe even offer them a Guinness while you watch DVDs on your PC with those neighbors. Get the word out.