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

hsdsafsdg

[Anonymous Coward]

He's right. Nothing can be done. Lets all give up.

Re:hsdsafsdg

[hoyd]

you mean, just start to use microsoft warez?

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:hsdsafsdg

[Jerry]

I, too, have set up a lot of friends (former WinXX users all) and I go with

1) Mandrake
2) A listing of ad servers in the /etc/host file.

Everything else is either included or not needed.

It costs them nothing and I donate my time. What are friends for if not that?

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

[Jin Wicked]

Well, I'm probably much closer to "average consumer" or general public than a lot of posters here are... I know about this stuff because I have an interest in computer and tech, but I'm not really involved in it...

Then again, there have been such attempts made on various scales, yet on the whole, apathy seems to be the victor.

Is it really apathy? You need to find a way to make ordinary people understand why it matters what they run on their PC at home to check their email and surf the web, when they have to take their kids to the Dr, remember to pick up dog food on the way home, call their mother to talk about getting the family together for the weekend, pay bills... and so on and so on.

I really would love to use Linux on my home PC, and I did my best to make myself a dual boot system but I couldn't get it running on my own. There are a lot of programs I have to have that are only on Windows, so Windows it was. But I work my butt off and don't really have time to devote hours learning a new operating system, when I already know my way around Windows, and on the list of Important Things Demanding Attention in my life, it's a pretty low priority. I used Mandrake on my ex-boyfriend's computer when I was staying with him, but he was always around to fix it when something went wrong. When Windows goes nuts, I can usually manage to get things working again on my own, at least.

The main obstacles to Linux, or any alternative OS, in my opinion are making it easy to use and configure right out of the box for someone with little to know computer knowledge, like me, and not only educating people about the alternatives to the monopoly, but why they should care when there are so many other important things to worry about.

Re:Public Awareness

[NanoGator]

"I think that the public needs to be more educated about the alternatives to the monopoly which controls the machines all around us"

I think there needs to be a much stronger effort by these alternatives to effectively replace Microsoft. It's not like I can just switch to Linux and automatically be happy.

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

[CherniyVolk]

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 will not be modded up for this, becuase it's truth. Truth, people actively ignore.

It burns me up every time someone claims that what is written on the chains holding Linux down has anything to do with ease of use.

Have we forgotten computing history? Are we that afriad of what needs to be done, we blatantly walk straight into a wall head first with ignorance?

Ease of use, has never to this day played a role in the popularity and market dominance of a computer operating system. Or, VCR, automobile, cell phone or any other interactive device.

Maybe, the problem is, most people here used to be Macintosh haters just three or so years ago. Oh, you heard about how easy the Mac was, so easy infact trolls still try to make a wise crack about the one-button mouse. It's always been a wonder to the Mac community, how Microsoft managed to surpass Apple hiding behind the command prompt. While we all have our business and economics degrees that give us a lame authority to try to define Apples blunders, the fact remains many geeks criticized Mac users because THERE WASN'T A COMMAND LINE!

Now, we point at the crippled Windows command line interface, and cry about Linux's ease of use!

Linux's ease of use is irrelevant. I don't care how many people scream otherwise. Linux has so many other qualities that if we focus on them, we will prevail. Who here started using Linux becuase it was "easy to use"? Noone. Who here started using Linux becuase of the liberty entailed in Open Source, the efficiency of Open Source, the control? I wonder if there is a high percentage of Linux users driving cars with manual transmissions... I do! I don't find it a coincedence either! When I was concerned with ease of use, I used a Macintosh. To this day, when ease of use is heavily on my mind, I recommend a Macintosh.

Microsoft displayed that market control can be easily acheived without ease of use. Or senseable use for that matter, they still haven't mastered cut and paste. But, we don't like how they did it. So we think we are better than they are, and we should come out on top if we don't stoop to their level. That's just plain fantasy, it never pans out in the end. There's a reality here, the man willing to kick the other in the balls will always be left standing. If you want to defeat such a person, you had better drop some morals otherwise you'll be hunched over in agony.

We can do this without zealotry, blind advocacy... but we can't do it if we constantly try to find a cause to the problem, we feel most comfortable with. Linux doesn't lack 95% of the market becuase it is hard to use. Linux lacks 95% of the market becuase it's users are hunched over on the side-walk thinking they are in pain becuase their shoes weren't tied right.

Re:Public Awareness

[Paradise Pete]

The only reason windows is easy to use is because...

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Most of the people I know who use Windows only know to "Double-Click that picture there to get internet. If that doesn't work, try cursing at the computer." Then they call me and ask "What the F does [nearly useless error message] mean?? I think I have a virus."

Re:Public Awareness

[beforewisdom]

Is it really apathy? You need to find a way to make ordinary people understand why it matters what they run on their PC

Ditto.

Computers may be the center of our world, but it isn't that way for the majority of people.

The way to get ordinary people to care is to give them software that they love.

They might write letters to their US Representatives on behalf of free(dom) software if something like Gaim or Firbird is threatened.

They will not write letters to their US Representatives on behalf of free(dom) software if something like emacs or mutt is threatened.

Steve

Re:Public Awareness

[naelurec]

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.

Don't think it is just with computer issues, but rather, MOST issues. Everyone has an opinion on something, most are uninformed and made out of ignorance.

When someone comes at them with something that offsets their uninformed beliefs, the first reaction is to defend at all costs their "choosen" platform. Needless to say, this doesn't work very well. However, slowly introducing people to FOSS DOES work. Infact, when people have issues with their computers, I try and use a FOSS solution when possible. Change IE/OE with Mozilla, AIM with GAIM, throw OpenOffice.org on there, etc.

The idea? eventually their #1 complaint "my software doesn't work on Linux" is a non-issue because infact, it IS cross platform.

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

[fatphil]

"the fact that buyers have chosen not to buy the alternatives and instead largely stick with Microsoft"

Are you trying to say PCs don't come _bundled_ with MS software?

Weird.

FP.

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

[Naffer]

Do we expect most car drivers to change their own oil, perform maintinence, and change their timing belts? Most people don't. I know many people who have never even opened their hood.
In the same way ease of use is vital for unix to gain marketshare. Most of the "computer users" I know haven't the slightest idea what brand their audio or video cards are, much less where to find and install drivers. You should see how some of them freak out when I give them an install CD without an auto-run option.

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

[mrroach]

> 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.

This just isn't true. I gave SuSE 9.0 a try, and specifically tested this out about a week ago with a friend's USB drive, and it does the exact same thing you describe in OSX. Plug in the drive, an icon appears on the desktop. I was actually fairly surprised by it.

-Mark

Re:Public Awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a previous slashdotter summed it up best...
Is Linux good enough for your Mom?

Somewhere in Linux-land, a phone rings....

Hello? Oh, hi mom.

Yeah, I can help you install a program on your computer. What do you want to install?

Oh, cool. Have you downloaded it? Good job. OK, open up a terminal.... it's the command line interface, where you type commands.

Where did you save the file? You don't remember? Hmm. Just type "cd". Now type "ls". Do you see the file name?

Great! OK, type "tar -zxf "

It didn't work? What does it say? OK. What is the name of the file you downloaded? Oh, well, that is a bzip file, not a tar and gzipped file. So type the same thing as before, but use "bzip2" instead of "tar".

What? Why didn't it work? Oh, it doesn't have the same syntax. Crap. Go to the man page. Oh, man stands for manual. Type "man bzip2". What does it say?

(20 minutes later)

OK, now we have uncompressed the files you need. No, not yet. Type "./configure" No, it's OK, it is figuring out what kind of computer and software you have.

OK, now type "make" OK, call me back when it is done.

(15 minutes later)

OK, now type "make install" What? Why not? What does it say? No, not that. Oh, wait, you have to be root. It is an administrator user. Because not just everyone can install programs, for security reasons. Look, just change to the admin user by typing "su". OK, now enter the root password. I DON'T KNOW! You mean you don't know your root password?

(10 minutes later)

Mom, you should NOT use the dog's name as the password. Because it is insecure! Nevermind. Just type "make install". There. Now it is installed.

No, there is no icon, you have to type the name of program to run it. Type it. What? I don't know, what was the name of the binary after you compiled it? A binary file is a program you run. You compiled it when you typed "make". Hmm, let's look in the Makefile. Type "vi Makefile". What do you mean it is blank? Oh, wait. Use capital M. Type ":r Makefile" with a capital M.

OK, now you are in vi, the most powerful editor ever. WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU PREFER EMACS!!!!

Re:Public Awareness

[oconnorcjo]

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).

Actually a program that works in the exactly opposite direction of wine would be BEST (A program on Windows that would allow a user to run most Linux programs). The reason is that if a developer believes that development for Windows is portable to Linux has no incentive to stop developing on Windows. However, if the Linux comunity could write a program to seemlessly integrate Linux programs into a Windows environment, many developers might move over to Linux for the "kill two birds with one stone" advantage. Even things like Mozilla and OpenOffice could focus on Linux and forget about Windows (assuming the program worked perfectly) instead of having multiple backend implementations of GUI/OS specific stuff. But don't respond about cygwin since it does not provide the functionality of wine nor does it integrate into the windows environment. What I am talking about is full recognition of the Linux ABI that translates to the Windows equivilent so that a user can plop a program they programed and compiled on Linux will just run on Windows.

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

[gregmac]

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.

One of the interesting comments in the article was that MS's cash reserves are big enough that they can operate for 5 years with zero revenue. That means they could give away Windows (competeing with open source), probably not run into antitrust problems since they're matching competition prices, and at the same time wipe out any other vendors that are selling at a non-zero price.

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?

[bgog]

I'll trade... I'll trade.
Of course it depends on which principles you mean. I wouldn't kill innocent people but hey I'll become a closed-source promotin, drm lovin, riaa employee for 2bil!

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?

[ottawanker]

Richard Stallman wouldn't.

No, but I'm sure he'd sell them as long as the buyer promised to but GNU/ in front of them.

Re:Principles?

[primus_sucks]

Considering McNealy has more more than anyone could ever need why would he need to trade principles for money? The only logical conclusion would be that he didn't have any principles to begin with and it has always been about money. It was a very said day for me as a Java programmer and Red Wings fan to see McNealy/Ballmer holding up an Yzerman jersey on stage together. My next project will be written in Python. Go Wings!

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?

[boelthorn]

If you see 2,000,000,000 ($ or EUR, it does not really matter) on your bank account, I guess you would even kill innocent people. It is simply to much money to still have any sense of reason.

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.

The Only Way Microsoft Can Die is by Suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

The Only Way Microsoft Can Die is by Suicide

So is there anything we can do to help?

Re:The Only Way Microsoft Can Die is by Suicide

[gnu-generation-one]

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

Make sure your employer pays in full for all the microsoft software they use, and book an hour on the timesheet to "reading EULAs" each time you install software on a new machine.

Just suggestions...

Re:The Only Way Microsoft Can Die is by Suicide

[slashflood]

I'm the Senior IT Manager of a well known software company in Germany. Whenever it comes to install Windows on a workstation computer (servers are running Linux), it's the job of my assistant, because I would become seriously ill, if I would touch Windows. The other day I asked him, what he thinks about the M$ EULA and he answered: "EULA? What's that?"...

Nobody really seems to be interested in those legal stuff like EULAs and thats the reason why noone sees the evil in M$.

Re:The Only Way Microsoft Can Die is by Suicide

[Viceice]

Well, thats the general idea. Like i say in my sig, the way I feel is best to break Microsoft's monopoly is to render all of their copyrights, patents and all other intellectual property, unenforceable by law.

The reason Microsoft has been so rich for so long is because they've been selling $5 plastic discs in a cardboard box with a stack of paper for $300. They reason they can do this is because if you buy your Windows at $5, the BSA will come and sue the crap out of you.

But what happens if suddenly even with all the lawyers in the world, they can't sue anybody simply because if they did, they're guaranteed to loose?

People would start installing all the MS products they wanted too, free from any stupid licensing schemes, reverse engineer to their hearts desire and MS revenue stream would be reduced to what they make from selling mouses. Then either the source to Windows gets released by some means and different flavors and improvements to windows start getting released, or the windows platform simply dies from stagnation.

Which solves the issue of MS being a bully in the US market. Also when foreign governments see this happen, how many governments won't make it so for their citizens to have Windows virtually free, without the fear of US trade embargoes?

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.

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 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?

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

[l0ungeb0y]

I agree but disagree.

Imagine limiting the model. Impose the tax-levy at market share of 70% or greater. That would encourage companies to get big, but not get too big. That is, it would create a very strong incentive to not kill off too much competition.

But the problem there is that microsoft is engaged in many markets and some products that attain monopoly in their markets are given away for free... So in the case of Netscape, how would the government applied such a tax-levy?

Perhaps rather than a tax, perhaps the revocation of all patents on said companies products in the given market.
So in the event of IE's market monopoly, all patents obtained by MS related to IE's functionality would be revoked, allowing for new competition to step in and compete without having to worry about IP infringement.

But there is no silver bullet here unfortunately.

Re:The smartest.... bah

[dbirchall]

Well, actually... if there is a direct correlation between percentage market share, percentage of the overall money being gotten in the market, and percentage tax rate, there is incentive to gain market share... until you hit 50%.

A couple minutes with a spreadsheet will show that 1 - 1% is .99, and 99 - 99% is also 0.99 ... but 50 - 50% is 25! It's a bell curve, and there's definitely a sweet spot there.

So under that "extreme" example, you could have two major competitors in any market operating at, or close to, maximum profitability, while a monopoly would basically self-destruct. Perhaps it's a little smarter than some people think.

Of course, the numbers could be adjusted to move the "sweet spot" higher or lower. You could make it so diminishing returns kicked in if a company had more than, say, 75% market share, so there could still be one big player, but leave room for smaller ones too. Or you could put the sweet spot at 33% or even 25%, thus encouraging the existence of 3 or 4 fairly evenly matched competitors in a market.

But yeah, Cringely's right that it won't happen. The folks who create taxes don't have much incentive to do that, considering who's lining their pockets, and besides, the math might be too hard for them. ;)

Re:The smartest.... bah

[edp]

"... why in the hell would I even try to get market share [when the tax rate punishes me for it]?"

You have made two mistakes here. First, you have missed the point altogether, that we want large companies not to get more market share. So your implicit complaint that we are discouraging growth is in fact the goal of this tax. You ask why this is a good thing. It is because when a company grows too much, it becomes harmful to society instead of helpful. (Or at least so some people think. I'm taking that as an assumption in this explanation, not defending it.) You have implicitly assumed that bigger is better. Maybe it is for the person who is bigger, but that does not mean it is better for society in general. E.g., any individual might make themselves safer by getting a bigger, heavier car, but that could make everybody else a bit less safe. If bigger were better, we should merge all businesses into one big huge company. Obviously, that would be awful.

Second, a tax rate that is progressive on market share does not necessarily penalize a company for being "good," or, more accurately, big. Depending on the tax structure, it may decrease the reward for being big. The specific proposal was a sales tax rate equal to market share. That might mean that 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. In that case, additional sales would get harder and harder, but each sale would still increase post-tax revenue.

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

[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.

well

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our old microsoft overlords.

afterall, can you imagine how difficult it would be to write 10 different versions of the same virus! agh! it would be horrible!

Re:well

[Anonymous Coward]

afterall, can you imagine how difficult it would be to write 10 different versions of the same virus! agh! it would be horrible!

This is an example of how Microsoft is killing innovation. Without Microsoft we'd probably already have viruses that mutate freely between different operating systems. They've held back progress by decades!

MS committing suicide

[sirsnork]

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.

Based on the way SP2 for XP is looking they may finally be learning this lesson, but if they don't it may not be a question of running out of money and more a question of running out of customers (one leads to the other I know but they have a LOT of money to spare even without customers)

Re:MS committing suicide

[Tongo]

Slightly OT but, the rumors of a forthcoming "XP Reloaded" release are false. The Register had an article about it recently.

Re:MS committing suicide

[xigxag]

the rumors of a forthcoming "XP Reloaded" release are false.

Right. Following your own link to its Business Week article origins, we read:

Later this year, it plans to begin a new marketing campaign, dubbed internally as Windows XP Reloaded.

A better idea...

[nuclear305]

Would be to have a new company come along and actually produce something new rather than recycle old and existing ideas.

Rather than try to bring Microsoft to its knees so that others can compete, why don't we put more effort into actually creating competition?

I think Bill Gates himself has proven that it only takes someone in a garage with a damn good idea...

Mod me down if you wish, just an honest opinion from someone sick of hearing about Microsoft's monopoly.

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...

[richie2000]

Would be to have a new company come along and actually produce something new rather than recycle old and existing ideas.

As if it hasn't been tried a few thousand times? Every single time, Microsoft has either bought the company in question and either integrated it or disbanded it, or created enough vaporware and FUD to shut it down. Remember Go, anyone? Where do you think Visio, Excel and Exchange comes from? Developed in-house? Ha! One of the guys behind Exchange even came over and tried to "ease our transition" when Bill'n'Steve bought us [1] out. You can not out-innovate someone who buys and steals innovations for a living and has forty billion dollars to play with. It can not be done, not on the same playing field. You will have to either out-gun them (maybe IBM could, if they had a visionary to push them, which they don't) or take the fight elsewhere and play by different rules as OSS is doing.

I think Bill Gates himself has proven that it only takes someone in a garage with a damn good idea...

Jobs and Wozniak proved that. Bill never worked out of a garage, his parents were a bit too wealthy for that kind of rough start. He was speeding his Porsche down in Albuquerque from day one.

Mod me down if you wish, just an honest opinion from someone sick of hearing about Microsoft's monopoly.

Well, I'm sick of living it. And I have been for close to ten years now. Do some research and you'll know why you're hearing about it. God knows there's enough books and websites written by the ones who have gotten their de-programming and gotten out. Start with Marlin Eller and go from there.

[1] Sendit, later known as Microsoft Mobile Internet Business Group and now known as NOTHING since they killed it off, apparently just for fun. Forty billion dollars allows you to have fun like that. Laugh, dammit!

Re:A better idea...

[Jugalator]

I think the reason the public don't bother with Linux as much as we might have wanted isn't really because they're stupid, but because they have no good reason to abandon a lot of their well-known software (no, Wine isn't a universal solution) for a still uncommon operating system with worse hardware support and where you'll have trouble viewing those PowerPoint presentations from work or whatever. To make users want to do the big jump of switching to an entirely different OS, you really need to convince them they'll for twice as fast with it or something like that. Less security holes won't do this, by the way. I've noticed inexperienced users might get a virus, spam a bunch of people, and then get told about it sooner or later and then they fix it and are happy. So security flaws are usually a non-issue to them.

Also, the OS on its own isn't as mature as we might want either. For example, when I was going to use the latest version Knoppix a bit, the entire OS froze when I tried to access my hard drive. Maybe it didn't support Serial ATA? So I tried to look this up, and it boiled down to having to know which SATA controller my motherboard had (something not even the manufacturer listed), and know which patch to get, and even then I wouldn't know if that was the problem. So what does a human (not stupid) user then do? Well, maybe throw the CD in the trash can and say "screw this unfinished software, why do I even bother?"

Just saying that you don't get many chances nowadays if something doesn't work right, especially if it's about an alien OS to the user and they aren't even convinced it'll do their job better. I'm not quite sure how a regular user would best be convinced. Keep in mind that you aren't trying to convince a computer geek. They don't care about technicalities, but how fast an OS get their job done. Even if Linux works really well, I doubt it gets their job done noticeably faster than a Windows box, and I think that's where the problem is.

Re:A better idea...

[ron_ivi]

Parent wrote: "I think Bill Gates himself has proven that it only takes someone in a garage with a damn good idea..."

Well, a good idea and a mother who shared a position on the board of United Way with John Opel (the then chairman of IBM).

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.

Disagree, this assumes they fail playing catchup

[arivanov]

One thing you have to admit, MSFT is both good at playing catchup and has enough resources to play catchup after it has missed the boat. There are plenty of examples:

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

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

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.

4. Microsoft ignoring wireless, thin clients, etc.

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

Erm...huh?

[Jin Wicked]

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.

What? That's the silliest thing I ever heard. I'm as anti big-business as most moderately anti big-business people are, but taxing businesses according to market share seems stupid and doesn't give them much incentive to want to grow, as least how I see it. If you want to go after corporations, start cracking down on tax shelters and loopholes that get them out of paying anything at all.

I know MS sucks donkey balls, but changing the entire tax structure and the market just to take care of them seems a little excessive. Hell, I'm using Windows but I still have Apple and Real products on my PC. Is it really that bad?

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.

capitalism--monopolies

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

It is my theory that capitalism, or more precisely free markets, lead to monopolies and oligopolies. 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. Companies like Microsoft, IBM, ExxonMobil, BP, Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, and others, will always dominate.

A lot of people in the tech industry, and in particular on Slashdot, are very anti-Microsoft. But the fact of the matter is that Microsoft has not done anything that other companies don't do on a regular basis. If anything, Microsoft is one of the better companies relative to its size (companies like Intel and IBM are far worse). If you think Microsoft is bad, you know nothing about Wal-Mart, ExonMobil, and others. A company like Walmart, for example, has far more power and is more monopolistic than Microsoft ever was. What you refer to as Microsoft's monopolistic behaviour is a total joke compared to the clout Wal-mart has over suppliers and consumers.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:capitalism--monopolies

[Jeff DeMaagd]

A difference being that I can still go to Target, K-Mart and my local grocery store without a heavy penalty, I can walk out with my money and buy somewhere else. It isn't as if buying at Walmart has such a big impact on the register reciept.

Switching from Microsoft to Apple, Linux or BSD has a much higher penalty because necessary software and usability know-how must be ported.

Re:capitalism--monopolies

[puppet10]

Can you name any company besides Microsoft that has emerged into a monopoly by taking over a free market?

Standard Oil

AT&T

Both were broken up by the government into competing businesses which went on to great success as competitors and IMO added more to the economy separately than if they had remained a single monlithic (emphasis on the lithic) entity.

Re:capitalism--monopolies

[pioppo]

Intel doesn't dominate, in fact AMD out-smarted them.

Wal-Mart doesn't even exist in Europe

ExonMobil has several good competitors here in europe, in fact I believe the biggest oil vendor in Italy is AGIP.

BP: I don't even know who they are

Please think twice next time you have to give examples.

Re:capitalism--monopolies

[bfg9000]

I don't care about their marketshare, I care about their forced lock-in -- their restriction of MY freedom to choose. MS Office is used by my customers, and since nobody else can read the proprietary Office files[1], *I* have to buy Office to communicate. When my client upgrades, *I* have to upgrade or I'm locked out from the new file format he'll be sending me files in. I was perfectly happy with the old MSOffice, but I was FORCED AGAINST MY WILL to upgrade. It's either that, or GO OUT OF BUSINESS. That's the choice. Everyone else uses it, so you have to use it. *That* is anti-competitive pressure. Until there are OPEN, NON-PROPRIETARY STANDARDS that everyone can access and read, which are freely available so everyone can make their software 100% compatible with each other, Microsoft is unfairly using their size advantage to stop competition in the office market. Microsoft refuses to compete on features and quality (making their software better), instead choosing the more nefarious route of making it hard for others to survive by shutting them out with engineered incompatibility.

When I buy something from Wal-Mart, there is NO WAY they can force me to continue to buy there in the future unless they buy up the entire market and every store becomes a Wal-Mart. Because if I buy a pair of socks from Wal-Mart, they still work with pants from somewhere else and a shirt from a third store. Windows programs are the exact opposite. With every product I buy, I am COMMITTING to future purchases on that platform, because to switch would be to lose everything I've bought up to that point. 90% of my Windows software doesn't come with Mac versions on the disk. 99% of my Windows software doesn't come with Linux versions on the disk. When I buy Windows software, I am pledging support to Windows, at the risk of losing my investment. And I have a friend who wanted to buy a Mac, but he'd spent so much money on Windows games, joysticks, etc. that he could NEVER leave.

[1] Open Office.org can read them to a point NOW, but that didn't help us for the last 5 years while MS steamrolled the market.

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

[eclectro]

What about by a well-placed highly skilled sniper?

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. That's the only way to be sure.

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.

The Only Way Microsoft Can Die is by Suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

But the only way they can regain any honor is by seppuku.

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

[BrookHarty]

I think Microsoft already saw the writing on the wall, they are moving towards home appliances and entertainment. They are moving into music, video and games. HDTV will have Microsoft media format for recordings, Music will be some DRM'ed version, and video games are out in the form of the Xbox. There already into PDA's, Phones, and Tivo clones. Microsoft will be around in all forms of entertainment. The OS market is dead, its time to move towards the bigger, larger honey pots.

As for software, besides the XP OS so I can run video games, all most applications are open source or free. Mozilla, Thunderbird, putty, Winamp (free version), Open office, cygwin, opengaim, windows player classic. iTunes, PowerDVD and Nero are pay, but they could move to Linux easily enough.

Besides free software for PC, everything else costs for most entertainment. Xbox games, HDTV DVDs, DRM'ed CDs, whatever. Microsoft will be a monopoly in other markets.

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.

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

[dbirchall]

Microsoft has 7 business units, if I recall.

• Client (Windows XP)
• Information Worker (Office)
• Server Platforms (Windows Server 2003, SQL Server, etc.)
• CE/Mobile (Windows Mobile, etc.)
• Business Software (Great Plains etc.)
• Home & Entertainment (Xbox, Media Center, etc)
• MSN

The only divisions that consistently turn a profit (a couple billion a quarter each) are Client and Information Worker. Server Platforms is usually brings in a profit of some hundred million each quarter, but sometimes (like the first quarter of fiscal 2004, if I recall) loses money. The other four combined lose something like $250 million every quarter.

Microsoft gets something like 90% of its profits from selling Windows client OSes and Office. If Microsoft expects to survive (or you expect it to do so) in some emerging segment while the "PC OS Market" goes away, it's going to have to do a lot better in those other segments.

Re:Disagree, this assumes they fail playing catchu

[PerpetualMotion]

You just switched from software to hardware. Unless I am mistaken, MS has not jumped into the Hardware/Cellphone/Cable TV/Telephone/Blender/Kitchen Sink buisness.

That's Walmart.

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:What about by a well-placed highly skilled snip

[richie2000]

You're kidding, right? Ford. General Electric. DuPont. Most of the seven sisters of Big Oil. Ericsson. And those are just off the top of my head. There are thousands more. When they get to a certain size, they go zombie. Nothing really kills them - they just merge, spin off daughters and re-brand. Maybe some kind of silver bullet would work, like for Enron. But even if Microsoft did invent that kind of accounting, they have the cash flow to prop it up, almost indefinitely.

Re:the dark side

[Wudbaer]

And that would be how ? Enlighten us !

Re:SUN isn't really the threat anymore

[digitalchinky]

Yes, there are alternatives to microsoft, though here in the Philippines if you 'actually' managed to sell someone a mac, they would bitch because it doesn't have 'windows' on it.

There exists 'only' "Pentium 2 / 3 / 4" and Microsoft Windows. This is a difficult mindset to break. It is the indelable mindset.

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?

Re:Wow

[ElectricPoppy]

What was the last really cool product Microsoft made?

Microsoft Bob?

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?

Re:so what...

[Stealth210]

Wow, those are very strong and sobering points. Maybe software and PCs/Networks are beginning to become mainstream. Just like mechanics in the early 1900s or the steel makers of the 1800s, where are they now? Well, the new ones at least(think 25 years establishment or less) aren't billionares, are they? Software and the tools that write software(think dumbed down software that writes the whole application for you with fairly efficient code) are the death of easy originality. Think about cars. As they become more and more mass produced, they quality goes down.

Cars are a good example. For example I just bought a 2003 Mustang Cobra and am having problems where as others with more limited production, such as a 1995 for instance, were built with more precision(read:more attention), but cost less and have less problems?!?!.

What I see here is the beginning of the destruction of capitolism/economics/life(as we know it). Think this way... If more and more people and corps come online with the tools to make an application that makes an instant internationally accessable website then all we will see is less and less of an acutal product and more of a battle of whose the best at lying and making the most apealing ads. We all hear about this or that company claiming to focus on the customer. I'm sorry to say, CUSTOMER SERVICE IS DEAD. It's all an ad campain. Like AT&T Wireless or Time Warner Cable. I deal with many vendors everyday with my work and the average rate of satisfaction from the service received is less than 10%. Both of the above companies' ranked the #1 and #2 spot on worst expiriences with getting customer service after the sale I have had.

When was the last time you had service. What about at a chain owned business such as a fast food establishment? It's going downhill and I'm expecting the worst soon.

There is another way for MS to die...

[e6003]

And that is to collapse under the weight of their own financial setup. I found this article, entitled Microsoft Financial Pyramid to be very enlightening. It's written by a qualified accountant so it must be true ;-) In essence, Microsoft's $50 billion in the bank is almost literally unreal - it's been built up by paying their employees a very poor basic salary and making up for it by offering lots of very attractive share options. The problem comes if those employees decide to start exercising those options - say if MSFT starts dropping in value. This might create a chain reaction: other option-holders start panicking and exercising their options as well - and all this would create yet more downward pressure on the price of MSFT. To keep this from happening, the only option will be for Microsoft to start buying its stock back - this $50 billion might not be enough if the pressure gets too great...

Now bear in mind that (a) there are challenges from all sides coming at Microsoft (they have failed to gain much of a foothold in markets outside their core products of Windows and Office, both core markets now under heavy attack from Free alternatives) and (b) the price of MSFT has almost halved over the past 5 years (in fact, it was almost touching $100 a share in Feb 2000) and you might just think it's not all rosy in the MSFT garden. So much so that co-founder Paul Allen sold all his MSFT stock and got out whilst the going was good. This is also why MS decided last year to pay a dividend on their stock for the first time - they have to prevent institutional investors from jumping ship. The stock setup is their one (big) weakness.

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

[sybert]

As a casual observer, it seems that Paul Allen's money is a part of every other innovative product coming out while MS Research doesn't seem to be producing anything very interesting. Individual investors who can afford to fund the most risky, and therefore the most innovative, investments will outperform corporate investments which will only go to innovation that will help the corporation's profits.

Microsoft can die if shareholders (including option holders) go after Microsoft's cash and force the board to pay a large dividend. Microsoft's monopoly profit will be diverted through individual investors to investment and innovation in new platforms and technology. Microsoft will not be able to keep up with software for new platforms if the competition is taking their revenue stream through dividends and using it to compete against them.

But if a new president hikes taxes on dividends and top income then Microsoft's earnings will stay with the company and this will not happen.

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.

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.

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:death by assumption

[l0ungeb0y]

Exactly, spot on about the windows rewrite.
I'd been expecting Windows to crumple since 99 when it was completely obvious that the code was so huge and the company so micro-managed that no one person or group of people had any concept of the code as a whole.

I'm sure they plowed ahead on the NT-ization concept because starting from scratch is extremely costly.
Even though MS has an army of programmers, imagine the hell that would have been stirred if MS suddenly announced that Windows was being end of lifed for a shiny new MS OS?

Plus a new OS requires all the existing apps to be ported, which is costly to both MS to write and the consumer to buy/integrate.

So in this case you can see that MS is locked into it's user base just as the users to MS's proprietary formats.

If you look at Apple, they had nothing to lose when they swapped out the OS, but found a novel way to allow for backwards compatability for their own and 3rd party apps.

However, MS has a lot to lose, approx 90% worldwide desktop market share. Not that they would lose all of it, but I could imagine a major exodus to other OS's or hardware platforms. And can you think of what that would do to MS's stock price?

Personally I think they made the right call in building on what they had but over-estimated themselves and have proven to not be able to deliver on all those promises.

And with that I come full-circle to my original post on this thread.

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.

It will happen again

[dncsky1530]

It was about this time 20 years ago when Apple released those Mac ads taking aim at the monopoly of IBM. "During release of Mac a programmer said to an Bill Gates, "Little does he know it not IBM he's fighting- its you."" (Pirates of silicon valley) I dont know if this is a true story or not but it does show that monopolies come and go, and it doesn't take a miracle.

How do u do it, "with great difficulty"

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.

Re:You nailed that "anti corporate" BS

[MvD_Moscow]

hey are not a monoploy? Are you crazy? All their actions over the recent years are monopolistic. Their intergration of applications into the OS, their delibrate concealment of standards. Remember Netscape? The real problem now (at least in USA) are corporate fat cats who destroy competition and force people to buy their products. Even in a free market economy once you get 50% market share it should get harder and harder to 60%, 70% and so on. But in real life it becomes easier, thats wrong! I am not a communist(even though I live in Russia), however American corporatism scares me. You people allowed a group whos sole purpose is take money to take power. Don't youconsider that crazy? You put people in life-imprisonment for stealing, but at the same time you allow corporation to add 30% on life-saving drugs. This notsome stupid cough medecine, this stuff saves lives, how can you make so much profit on such things? Treat corporations good only when the treat the consumers in the same manner!

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.

What can happen and is happening

[SmallFurryCreature]

MS became powerfull because IBM was the evil empire before. IBM was the fat arrogant bastard and MS was the liberator. It is therefore very easy to think the MS could now find itself as the evil empire to be liberated by say Linux.

There is however a problem. The problem is that IBM existed in a different world then MS does now. IBM technology was a small world populated by the techs. MS however exist in a world in wich IT is now used mostly by non-techs. These people are far less prepared to switch from MS to Linux as before the techs switched from Mainframes to DOS.

So what can happen?

Security

One is security. So far all the security problems have been mild. Nothing really major happened. People are not going to switch because of a few virusses (I am talking the non-techs here) or because they loose a little bit of data. Just ask youreselve how many cars have been produced that were so faulty that they killed people and what happened to the companies that produced those cars? Are those companies still around their cars still selling? Right. Apathy. People are stupid, lazy, shortsighted, greedy and gullible.

A major worm that really wipes out a large percentage of windows machine would be required for a shift to take place. Is this likely? Well so far it hasn't happened. None of the worms are really destructive enough.

MS missing the boat

This is mentioned in the article and I think it is wishfull thinking. MS has missed every damn boat out there. So far without result. People do without or pay extra or pay others. Just look at tcp/ip, browsers, png support in browsers, games (once Apple was the PC with games), and many many others.

Competition

Now we are talking. Linux itself isn't really competition as linux is not competiting. If Linux is used by 1 person then it still is a 100% success.

But there are others willing to use Linux as the base from wich to launch their own offensive.

I don't think companies like IBM or Sun or HP are any real threath. They had their change and goofed. But look to the east and you will see one huge evil empire who has everything to loose by MS being dominant and nothing to gain. China may for a lot of reasons become the bastion of freedom for the west ruled by DMCA/RIAA/MPAA/MS. People always talk about the richness off MS but forget that 50billion is peanuts to goverments. America is only so corrupt because its leaders are so cheaply bought. Just look at the donations given and the profits of the companies making the donations.

China however has a rememedy for that. A bullet paid for by the relatives.

Red flag linux run on a dragon chips would be a very nice way for china to first gain independence at home and second be a nice export article to those willing to break free from Longhorn/Blackcomb or whatever.

I think this is the only real threat to MS. A country wich cannot be bought, threatned or outsold. An asian pact would also break the MS office version deadlock. Want to trade in the east? You will comply with their standards or you will not trade.

Is any of this likely to happen?

Apart from the far east revolt I doubt that anything will change soon. We live in a world where only a tiny percentage of people even can be bothered to vote. Expecting those people to lead a revolt against a company is to much.

Of course that is no excuse for those of us who know better.

This article written on Linux

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: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.

The more things change...

[RetiredMidn]

Back when the government gave up on its antitrust suit with IBM (I wonder how many /.ers were around for that? Yikes.), I remember thinking that IBM won because it had enough money to stare down any government, and hating the implications (I had worked almost exclusively on DEC systems for several years, and hated IBM as I now detest Microsoft.)

Well, as Cringley pointed out, things do eventually change. Microsoft will fall, eventually, and probably of its own accord. (Longhorn looks like a good start...)

And an observation that is not a troll, but is likely to get me modded down for the first time anyway: by 1983, I was tired of hearing people say that this was the year that *nix would start to take over. It's taken me many years to become a believer, and I have learned patience along the way.

Windows/Solaris Hybrid OS.

[Usagi_yo]

Sun didnt' sell it's principles. Sun sold it's soul.

Microsoft is positioning itself to battle linux. To do so, they cross license IP with Sun for Solaris innards with its excellent scaleability and enterprise class functionality. This means a new class Operating system derived from Solaris and Windows with quite possibly a small piece of the pie to SCO.

Meanwhile, Sun is going to migrate away from Sparc. They simply cannot compete in the proprietary CPU market. Look for them to adopt and have a hand in developing AMD processors with multi-core CPUs that run the new hybrid OS. Then Sun will market the server, workstation, Desktop based systems. Microsoft will get a cut of the hardware business as Sun gets a cut of the software business. Sco get residual license fees, and Linux gets another 10 years to catch up.

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.

Insidious

[ChaoticCoyote]

My 13yo duaghter has "computer classes" at her Middle School. Are they teaching her programming? No. Are they teaching her basic principles of technology? No.

They're teaching her Microsoft PowerPoint and FrontPage.

I'm not anti-Microsoft; in fact, their software often offers features not found in FOSS applications. PowerPoint is not evil; what's evil is how PowerPoint is used to turn complex ideas into empty summaries.

Yet I find it disquieting that the schools are teaching kids with proprietary software (probably donated) to make business presentations. Most kids don't have a resource at home who can etach them about programming and alternative software. It's not my kids I worry about so much as the corporate monoculture that they're going to live in, populated by ignorant cogs created by an assembly-line school system.

It looks like my middle daughter will follow her 15yo sister into the world of homeschooling. But what about other people's kids? In my mind, Microsoft is no better than a drug peddler, creating a dependancy in youth that leads to addiction in adulthood.

Cringley is right about one thing -- for the most part, the people who care about FOSS are those who know how to use a compiler. And the advocates of FOSS still lack the attention to users -- non-compilers -- that is required to create a valid alternative to Microsoft.

One thing I've learned from being on the frontlines of social activism -- being "right" means nothing. The success of any revolution depends on the ability to engage the passions of the common folk who do not understand (or care to understand) the issues. Geeks can look down their noses at the unwashed masses, but unless you can attract the interest of common folk, your revolution is doomed, and Microsoft wins.

Re:Insidious

[pommiekiwifruit]

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

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.

Microsoft May Already be Dying

[g129951]

It seems to me that Microsoft, after many years of poor performance and an anti-trust conviction and a multimillion dollar fine in Euroland, may already be dying. Doesn't anyone with more than a couple of years of computing experience already hate them? I've been working with computers for 25 years and I started using Linux when it finally had a reasonable set of desktop applications and resolved some of the hardware compatability issues. Many US companies are dying --but it's from the inside so many don't see the decay until it far along. Can a company really survive in an environment where the potential customer base hates them, when they write crappy code that any 14 year-old can break into, and their business practices send even normally sedate government bureaucrats into a frenzy? Do they really have that much money? I'll bet the executives are clueless about what's really happening on the shop floors too --another common problem in companies these days.

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.

Re:You nailed that "anti corporate" BS

[PlatinumInitiate]

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

That's debatable. Some of it might have had to do with Word/Excel/VbDos and other MS programs being preferred by users, but I doubt that was the whole story - in the MS-DOS days there was still a lot of competition in these areas, some very strong and obviously preferred by users (eg, WordPerfect). I don't know if you are aware of the extent of Microsoft's underhanded tactics, which goes way back to the company's first days.

MS Basic was ripped off from Dec Labs (Gates worked as an intern there), Gates used his uncle's position on the IBM board of directors to wrangle a deal for MS DOS (originally Q-DOS, bought by Microsoft from another company, called Seattle Software Products), and from there they've tightened their grip on the desktop market ever since. There is abundant documentation of their illegal tactics used against the makers of DR-DOS (Digital Research DOS), their illegal tactics that basically force OEMs to accept only Microsoft, and their illegal tactics forcing against competing products such as Netscape, Java, etc. Capitalism is one thing, but what Microsoft have done is not right. The sad thing is, although these are all proven facts, even Governments seem to scared to punish Microsoft with anything more than a (relative to Microsoft) slap on the wrist, because Microsoft has become such a powerful entity.

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.

Re:You nailed that "anti corporate" BS

[sphealey]

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?

Microsoft got its market share because (a) Bill Gates had better foresight than IBM about the potential of the PC market (b) Bill Gates and his mother wrote a contract (for MS-DOS, which of course at that time didn't exist) that outsmarted all of IBM's team of super-lawyers and allowed Gates to take advantage of point a.

A very very smart thing to do I will grant you. But nothing Microsoft produced was "better" than its competition until the 2nd or 3rd version of Excel for Windows, and not much since (compare Netware 4.11 to Microsoft's current F&P offerings for example). All of Microsoft's success has been based on that MS-DOS tax, leived with the assistance of IBM and now enforced by the network effect.

MS is not a monopoly.

Microsoft has been found to be an abusive monopoly by a United States Federal Court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals and review denied by the Supreme Court. I therefore must disagee with this statement ;-).

sPh

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: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?

missing the boat

[Anonymous Coward]

The final stage I call "missing the boat," which involves a significant advance in non-Microsoft technology that Redmond chooses to address by not addressing -- they just dictate that it shall not be so, thinking that as always their word is law. Maybe this last stage has to do with Open Source but probably not. This stage has to be something beyond Netscape's browser or Sun's Java, because Microsoft was willing to embrace those and destroy them. Missing the boat means a zig that threatens the heart of Windows, probably associated with a hardware platform shift. Only this time, Microsoft will be too slow and customers, feeling abused and tired of the treadmill, won't be so afraid. Bill Gates (it will still be Bill, because this will happen in the next decade I am sure) 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.

Well he misses the point that MS has learned from their mistakes! They 'missed the boat' a number of times before - (ie. the browser, java/Virtual Machines) but luckily for them they've managed to catch up. They won't make this mistake anymore, they have an answer to each and everyone that could remotely challenge their dominance - they'll embrace and acquire everything software. Just look at what they're doing around the w3c, xml, blogs, ... So look out yahoo, google, real, and others like intuit. You're next on their list. They have answers (like msn) and 53 billions $ war chest. They just did to Sun what they did to corel and others - Put them on life support, bought out their lease on life.

Very soon, as Cringley points out the difference between linux and windows will be price.

Re:so what...

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

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

How about the software that makes to robots do their robot-ing? Once the robot goes the way of the computer and the dishwasher, I think we can expect another Closed Source vs Open Source clash.

And with robot I mean a real SF-like robot, like a butler-robot or anything of that complexity, not one those lawnmower robots, these can get away with "simple" software. The robo-butler would need a real OS to handle all it's tasks. (Just think about how many differend (simultaneous) steps you need to take to e.g. fill a glass).

The story of software is all but finished.

Re:so what...

[Jerry]

Cars are a good example. For example I just bought a 2003 Mustang Cobra and am having problems where as others with more limited production, such as a 1995 for instance, were built with more precision(read:more attention), but cost less and have less problems?!?!.

It's a matter of choice. I bought a new 2002 Saturn SL. I have had ZERO problems and consistantly get 30+mpg in town and 40+mpg on the hiway. I deliberately chose quality over glitz, even though I feel the Saturn looks neater than the Mustang. So it is with software. Rather than choosing a flashy, highly promoted OS I selected Linux. My reward is high usability, stability and security.

Problem UNTIL something B-A-D happens.

[crovira]

Face it. The computing industry and its uses is not an important facet of life on earth. It just isn't.

The only way we're going to break up something like M$, or any a cash bloated behemoth (remember Unsafe at Any Speed ), is when something really B-A-D happens; like people dying as a direct result of using it; as if the /0 error had happened while the ship was under fire from terrorists...

Until then... Learn to cope with the beast.

Re:so what...

[russellh]

I don't think quality has gone down. My Volvo is of the hightest quality. This 12" powerbook is easily the most well-built, well-thought-out computer I've ever owned (my first was a Ti-99/4A). I don't think software quality has diminished either, frankly, considering the increase in complexity. Sure my Apple //e booted in half a second, but I couldn't edit video on it. Say all you want about sleazy marketing, but ink-jet printing is - from the perspective of the 1980's and earlier - absolutely amazing. Remember NLQ dot matrix and daisy-wheel printers? They sucked. Really. They sucked. Today you can get a laser printer for cheap. This is all power to the consumer. How about a gun analogy now, instead of a car analogy - anyone with a gun (say, a super-cheap AK) can take out the greatest master swordsman. Sad in a way, but then that's real power to the people.

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 /.

Re:Why would we want Microsoft to die?

[naelurec]

I know I don't want Microsoft to die. Lets face it, reinstalling Windows, running spyware removers, virus scanners, "troubleshooting" and patching systems pays pretty good.

I made the mistake of replacing some Windows servers with Linux about two years ago for some companies. What a mistake! After those systems were installed, I don't hear from them anymore. Well I'll take that back, there was a hardware failure that they let me fix, but to be perfectly honest with you, I am starting to feel like the maytag repair man (heck he probably gets more business than I do).

stupid. stupid. stupid. stupid. stupid.

I promote Windows because its easy! People accept it blindly, it pays better for me as there are more issues (and longer resolve times) and I get exercise going from machine to machine applying the same patches. Life is grand .. just don't tell them I don't personally use Microsoft, and all will be just fine.

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.

Re:so what...

[pfdietz]

Actually, the biggest steel maker in the US is now Nucor, which is a relative newcomer. The old established steel companies missed the minimill boom (a disruptive technology) and have been struggling with huge pension costs from old labor agreements.

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.

Mudslinging

[mariox19]

McNealy should have watched "Godfather 3"...

Why wish that on anybody?

Yeah, sure

[nyri]

Let me remind you all of East Indian Company:

It was a British company with the unusual distinction of ruling an entire country. It saw its birth 31. December 1600. It ruled the India over 200 years. It was dissolved 1856 by the Crown, which took over the control of the India. I think that the size and the power of the East Indian Company puts Microsoft in shame.

History has not ended. Microsoft will die eventually. If you don't belive me, just think of the East Indian Company and its fate.

Re:so what...

[Mr. Slippery]

anyone with a gun (say, a super-cheap AK) can take out the greatest master swordsman. Sad in a way, but then that's real power to the people.

Actually, that depends on range - at close range a knife or sword-weilding opponent can carve you up before you have time to draw and fire a handgun, and long guns are awkward at point-blank range.

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.

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: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: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?

On Circumventing Open Source

[crem_d_genes]

This blog post in Advogato deals with issues across the pond from MS home - but there are some interesting points about how the Open Source License is just as bogged down in terms of how different interfaces cannot *interoperate*

For instance - "In other words, the Wine team are entitled to write to the Samba team to ask them for their "interface" access points, such as the DCE/RPC and LANMAN and SMB file / print sharing interfaces. The Samba team responds by saying "you can get the code from here". The Wine team responds by saying "the license is incompatible, I cannot use that code". The Samba team responds "sorry, we cannot help you there".

Ease of use IS the problem.

[copponex]

I work in a Pro Audio store, and I'm a script level nerd. I work on Macs, X and 9. I work on PCs with windows. In 2000 I installed a small redhat server that shared 20 gigs of space, and also acted as a firewall and dhcp server.

I have installed and used: Slackware, Redhat, Mandrake, Debian, Gentoo, and unsuccessfully tried to install yellowdog on an old (and apparently unsupported) Mac clone.

This is the reason I have no problem in saying that the ease of use in Linux is absolutely the reason it isn't popular. People are cheap, and they love free anything, and they'll deal with a lot of headache to save money. A free Linux desktop that was easier to use than windows would be more popular than windows. But there isn't one.

Here's the bottom line:

1. You won't win the desktop until you have a solid GUI platform where a completely encapsulated installer requires ONE COMMAND to begin the install process.

2. You won't win the desktop until you have POLISHED and COMPLETE business applications. QuickBooks, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, and the like have absolutely no equal in Linux.

3. For the above to happen, there need to be standards in Linux. It's really that simple. Windows may be bad, but it's consistent. I can write an application that will work in Windows 98, ME, 2000, and XP. Will a .deb work in yellowdog? Does emerge work in Fedora? Do you realize how few people can even comprehend why there's a difference, let alone what the differences are?

If you make Linux better than windows and keep it free, it will become more popular. Just remember that 95% of your audience doesn't give a shit about games, or how fast pieces of backend code work, or how revolutionary it will be for them to have a limitlessly configurable desktop. They're at work. They want to sell things, communicate with their customers, keep track of their finances, stay organized, and then turn the thing off and go home.

antitrust won't work on Microsoft

[Devil]

I really have to agree with the article, because it's become clear that antitrust measures simply won't work on Microsoft. As an example, look at the old Bell monopoly. In that case, there was a clear, simple way of breaking up the company: geographically. In the case of Microsoft, how would one break it up? Geographically wouldn't work, not in today's globalized world. Breaking it up into OS and applications companies wouldn't work, because both companies would still be juggernauts. And as much as people want, no breakup would require the Windows source code to be opened up, because the government simply doesn't think that way. No, the only way Microsoft will die is by their own hand, thinking they can dictate terms in the computer industry. I sure hope Linux (and the BSDs) are the instrument that causes Microsoft to fall upon its own sword, but I'm not buying Cringely's within-this-decade estimate; Gates is just too savvy to what happened to big companies like IBM to let that happen to his baby. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen after Gates retires at the very earliest.

Fortunately, the open-source communtiy has an advantage Microsoft can't match; sheer collective power. No closed-source company can possibly compete with that forever, so what the open-source community needs to do is to keep plugging away, keep innovating, keep making the projects and products better and better, keep chipping away at the monolith. This community has the speed and maneuverability to be that "faster ship" Cringely refers to. But it's going to take a lot of hard work and a lot of time.

Cringly is right

[gone.fishing]

Okay, I made my subject something that would draw people into the comment. Flame me if you wish. Cringly has written a well thought out, thourough article on the state of Microsoft today. I hope he is wrong but suspect that he may be right.

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.

Would Microsoft be justified in giving away free software to beat open source? Sure, they would be meeting their competition head-on. Even if everything else were equal, Microsoft would probably win because of their PR budget and their name recognition. Open Soure can't win on price alone. Open Source still has to compte in other areas as well. Areas like quality, security, ease of use, availability.

Can Open Souce beat Microsft? Maybe, maybe not. North Vietnam beat the US and that was a David vs. Goliath battle. David beat Goliath. Yes, it can be done. But the battle isn't on cost alone. It is a hearts and minds kind of battle and on that front I'm afraid that Open Source doesn't have much of a market share (yet).

I'm not trying to say that all of this is right or as it should be but I am saying that this is the way that it is. At least today.

I am concerned from a global level that Microsoft has too much power. With so much of the software market they are in a position to dictate how, where, when, and why computers are used.

I don't think this is a good thing and I think that in a sense it constitutes a global security threat. If computing becomes a Microsoft oriented mono-culture, vunerabilities in the software can (and probably will be) exploited by governments, crime syndicates, and even individuals. I'm not talking about worms and viruses here, I'm talking about people seriously interested in destroying an entities economic existance.

If for no other reason, this is a reason enough for people to work against Microsoft's owning the world!

There is another question that needs to be asked. What happens if Microsoft finds that it has reached the limits in software and in order to continue to grow it decided to diversify? We know the kind of machine it is. Perhaps, they would gobble up someone like AMD and go into building computers? Controling the hardware like they control software would allow them to grow into that industry and control it quite quickly. Especially if they made their software run better on their hardware.

Think of what Walmart has done to merchants in many a small town. When Walmart comes to town, family owned merchants (clothiers and hardware stores especially) who have been in the community for generations have simply had to close their doors. The communities don't die but there is less choice and more money leaves the community and enriches a few people in Bentonville AR.

This is the kind of thing that could happen to computing if Microsoft wins. Only it would happen on a global scale. It would mean that Microsoft would be a superpower.

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.

90% MS mkt share..

[Hooya]

i see that as a good thing. for me. because I have GNU/Linux -- something Free (both free as in beer and free as in freedom), i have an edge on 90% of my competitors. I'm 100% MS free. A 90% market share for MS essentially means 90% of our competitors have an operating cost much higher than ours. we don't worry about periodic licencing fees and can use any and all the tools available unlike our competitors who would have to go thru budgeting and all that mumbo jumbo to get the tools they need to get their job done. consequently, we get our job done faster/cheaper without ever having to lose focus. a low operating cost for a business allowing it to compete against much bigger and established competitors just because they're bleeding cash thru their nose. how's that for "innovation"?

seeing this as it is, i don't see why we get our collective panties in a twist as to what the rest of the world uses. me, i'm just smug knowing that i can do what the others can do (and probably can do it better and faster) and definetely a lot cheaper. does the 90% have *all* of the following (i mean, do they *all* have *all* of the following):

• a compiler for all imagenable languages? (gcc)
• a sound editor? (audacity)
• office tools (OOo)
• internet suite (mozilla/firefox)
• development libraries for everything ranging from crypto to i18n to what-have-you
• the list would go on and on..

for the 90% of people, to put a system like that together would cost them thousends.

So, really, the MS monopoly has just kept my compititors from running a business with a superlow operating cost. hasn't kept me from running my operation on a low operating cost. if that means i'll have to break my web pages to work in IE. hey, small price to pay for that competitive advantage. All i can do is thank MS for spending all their time and money creating a coke-habit for the other 90% and letting me have this edge on them. Thank you MS!!

The change will come from schools

[bgfay]

I'm talking about high schools and (especially) small colleges where budget cutting has become not only a tradition but mandatory. No one is increasing spending on schools right now and that trend will continue.

Does this mean that Open Source software will take over? No, probably not. Linux and OpenOffice will fill niches (we've installed Linux on two of ten machines, OpenOffice on all the machines (along with Office), and had some success) but what will happen is that MS will give away software to schools.

This is already happening at the secondary school level by a quiet agreement. Schools ignore licenses more than they pay attention to them. My school has fourteen unlicensed copies of Windows, thirteen of Office, and a host of other software. We buy one copy and it ends up on all the machines, go figure.

Will Microsoft bust us? I would love it if they did because there simply is no money to buy licences and we would have to move to Linux. But what will happen is that MS will ignore it because most of our kids want Office at home and XP too. That leads to more sales of PCs with licensed, paid for copies of Microsoft software.

In fact, it leads to computers running nothing but MS software.

Still, MS has to give away software to get people using it. Too many places where computers are used by the next generation of software buyers can't afford to buy the software. If MS gives it away, most folks will choose it over Linux and OO.o.

Well, they will unless people like me are in the schools suggesting that it is better on many, many levels to not be tied down to any one software product.

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! :)

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."

Suicide

[Javagator]

Redmond Washington (AP) - Bill Gates announced today that Microsoft was shutting down. "We just aren't good enough to be this dominant", said Gates. "So as a public service, we are voluntarily going out of business. We suggest that our customers switch to Linux." In other economic news, the unemployment rate for software engineers jumps, Apple increases prices 50%, and the U.S. trade deficit worsens.

After Bill?

[RoadkillBunny]

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

The biggest problem with Linux is...

[sonic_ak]

that, when it comes down to it, it really isn't innovating. Sure it is improving, and it is breaking new ground, but so far, it doesn't seem to be trying to grow beyond a desktop/server OS as much as it should. I really think that computers as we know them are on the verge of being rethought, its just a matter of who does that rethinking. I hear a lot of people talking about how Linux needs to beat MS on the desktop front. It doesn't. Getting rid of an entreanched and well organized entity like MS is extremely difficult at the least. Linux/OSS should probably look at being the first one to get to the post-desktop and own that. I'm not sure what that will be, although I think that networked small devices is probably a good bet. The technology for all of this is available, it just needs to be put together. The other advantage of this is that it plays heavily on Linux's strengths, namely security and stability. Joe Blow may not care if his computer crashes every once and a while but if his TV or fridge or microwave stops working because he got hacked by his neighbor's 8 year old kid, security and stability will suddenly become strong selling points. Not to say that this approach would guaruntee success, however, even if we did get there before MS. What needs to happen first is some campain finance reform, so we could at least have a chance of having a president who isn't actively working against the public intrest.

The Computer industry is flawed

[itistoday]

The problem with the computer industry is that the average joe has now idea what a computer really is. He sees that most people use MS Windows, and so goes with the flow, not knowing any better. Cars, retail stores, are all relatively simple concepts to understand, but still, in this day and age, computers remain an elusive subject for most people. If they can't make up their minds as to what operating system they want, they have others do that for them, resulting in a domino effect that leads to a 95% market share. What needs to be done is for the government to step in, and break MS apart into little pieces. Then, they need to establish a standards organization that will create a *Standard* hardware structure for all computers that is able to interpret and compile 5 of the top programming languages. If everything is standard-ized, then it will be simple for all programs--Mac, Windows, Linux--to compile their program for any OS. Only then, will the computer industry be fixed, and choosing an OS will be equivalent to deciding between Window Managers or Desktop Environments such as KDE/Gnome. Finally, the quality of OS's will increase greatly due to the competition.

Re:The Computer industry is flawed

[Afrosheen]

The main problem with Linux and other OS's has been compatibility for day to day tasks.

Average Joe has only a handful of needs. He wants to surf the net, watch flash animations, some occasional java, send and receive email (and filter spam), open Word and/or Excel documents for viewing, editing, etc. He also wants some media software to listen to mp3's, watch streaming video of any format, and maybe the occasional game.

In the past, MacOS has done all of these things but with a prohibitive cost due to the outrageously priced hardware. Also, Joe knows nobody else with a Mac. So Apple hasn't been a viable option for the majority of users in the past....and as long as it remains the Porsche of hardware/software combos, it'll remain on the fringes.

These days, linux can do all of the things that Joe needs, but Joe still needs local support. Nobody at CompUSA, BestBuy or any local chains has any clue about linux. Joe doesn't know any local linux geeks that'll come fix something for a 6 pack of Duff. He does, however, know a friend/cousin/coworker that will come over and fix his Windows box when it inevitably gets hosed.

You can wave the linux flag all you want, and beat people over the head with it's superiority, but you have to step up when the time comes. You have to push a distro or livecd to your friends and neighbors. You have to be willing to support them when they need help. Once YOU become the local linux guru, people will feel more secure with their choice of an alternative OS. All of this is necessary because no matter how you look at it, Linux is still more complex in many ways than Windows.

I don't know how much government intervention can do. The whole DOJ-Microsoft fiasco was yet another travesty of justice, proving once again that you can buy your own justice in this country. Don't ever forget that Microsoft is 50% marketing, 30% lawfirm and 20% software.

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.

that last sentence...

[gd2shoe]

...Is what I think got him moded Insightful. (lol)

Consider the security angle & a doomsday scena

[timek]

First, take a look at this article

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/07/witty_ev il _firsts/

At least as I understood the article [not being a IT security professional or even a programmer], this analysis of the Witty worm suggests some possibilities.

Imagine if you will, a worm similar to Slammer with rapid saturation but with a self-destruct timer. The host computer is nuked at a specified time. Say 2 hours after the worm's release into the wild through some of those zombie bots the article mentions. Or if the host computer is rebooted before the deadline, on reboot the hard drive is formatted. Or the computer could be nuked 2 hours after infection.

What would happen if umpteen kazillion windows machines stopped working all at the same time, or at least within a few minutes of each other?

How do you think Microsoft's future would look, considering that Mac, Linux & Unix users would be largely unaffected? As I have explained to colleagues, friends, & acquaintences, the single most effective way to avoid these kinds of worms, viruses, et al, is to avoid Microsoft products whenever possible.

And given how much Windows' "security" model aids in the propagation of worms, AV & firewall vendors wouldn't be in much better shape either. There wouldn't be enough time to 1) become aware of the threat 2) prepare fixes & AV/firewall signatures 3) make the fix available 4) make the general computing populace aware of the necessity of applying the fix immediately 5) have enough bandwidth on hand to provide the fix to all who would need it.

Again, as I understood the article, this doesn't seem to be impossible as a matter of principle. From the article, it just looks like no one has thought of trying it yet.

While, I hope it doesn't happen, I don't see why it can't either.

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.

Here's What Will Kill MS...

[nightwing2000]

I think the in the future, the operating system will be killed by irrelevance. After a while, it won't matter what your operating system is.

How? Consider the computing needs of the user of the future. Primarily, they will need to read mail and browse the internet. (Oh, and play games, and DVD's, etc.) The average user won't care what operating system is underlying their equipment - you could do most of these functions with WinCE, or stripped down LINUX.

What else do you want to do?
- Run compute-intensive, graphic-intensive tasks? buy a module for that. Use a form of browser-based terminal to connect and use the service it provides.
- Storage, read, write CD/DVD/BlueLaser media? Use a network-attached storage device for that.
- Printing - use a network attached printer.
- Timer event devices?
- Web servers? - a feature of storage devices...

Watch for the complex computer to decompose into a number of devices; none of these are going to need a full Windows OS, and the functions will be so trivial that most will make do with very stripped version of public or licensed software. USB functionality will evolve into full network functionality.

When to many such devices are too prevelant, a retailer or service provider can try to impose change at their peril. Do you deliberately want to lock out 30% of your customers? What advantage would any replacement for, say, Flash as a protocol/file format have to have to displace it? Same for real networks; not to mention HTML, etc.

The whole computer succeeds for now because the cost of dedicated devices is about the same for less functionality; and the interface/protocol is not quite fixed enough. When a browser tablet can connect as easily as your pC (because every home has a home router with DHCP, the first building block in this new world order) and when that device can be made for signifcantly less than a computer - then Microsoft will truly be doomed.

Re:Insightful indeed...

[kylemonger]

You do realize that most places you actually have to pay extra to not have a Microsoft OS preinstalled when you buy a new computer? Don't you?

True enough, but the largest retailer in the world says you don't have to.

Using Linux is like Buying American

[pseunonymous coward]

I think this is a better socio-economic metaphor... Asking Joe Average to only use Linux and OSS is as realistic as asking Americans to only buy american-made products and items that are "Made In The USA".

Many people feel that these are the right, healthy, responsible things to do on many levels, but the norms of buying global products (@ WalMart, etc) and using MS software are too entrenched and frustrating for most people to work around.

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.

Don't worry, Microsoft can always count on BSD

[Nice2Cats]

To those who seem to think that Microsoft could "miss the boat" and be overtaken by Open Source software: This is not going to happen, simply because Microsoft has all the BSD operating systems at its disposal to help it play catchup should the need ever arise. Thousands and thousands of hours of work and testing, theirs to sell for free for any price they want in the next version of Windows, with no need to give anything back to the community. They can always do an Apple, but bigtime.

Richard Stallman might not be the person the best temperament to take tea with the Queen of England, but when everything is said and done, he ends up being right, which is probably the real reason so many people here hate his guts. He has been right a along, and the events we are watching just confirm this a bit more every day. And when push comes to shove, the BSD license and all the oh so helpful people that turn out software under it are Microsoft's life insurance, just as they were for Apple.

I know you are supposed to be nice to the BSD people and smile and be friends, but everytime Microsoft grinds another competitor into the dirt (bye-bye Sun) or prevails over another government (bye-bye Europeans, you could have made it count), I remember who handed Microsoft their TCP/IP stack on a platter and who knows what else, I come another step closer to the conclusion that they are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Giving Apple a free ride might be seen as an act of charity, but helping Microsoft make money...

...great work, guys. Thank God for the GPL.

How about RICO?

[hey!]

Hmmm. If the executives of MS direct their company to break the law, and use their (in this case) financial muscle to do so with impunity, wouldn't this amount to a form of organized crime? Basically, if MS is immune to financial punishment, perhaps the potential for doing time would get the attention of its management.

Maybe a lawyer in the community might want to comment on this, but mightn't the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) apply here? It's intended to promote "the elimination of the infiltration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organizations operating in interstate commerce."

It'd be a bit of a stretch to construe Microsoft's behavior as extortion, but if it were, then in addition to the extortion per se, the conspiracy to commit extortion would be addressed by RICO:

RICO specifically prohibits four activities: (a) investing the proceeds of a pattern of racketeering activity in an
enterprise that engages in interstate or foreign commerce; (b) acquiring or maintaining an interest in such an enterprise by means of a pattern
of racketeering activity; (c) using a pattern of racketeering activity in conducting the affairs of such an enterprise; or (d) conspiracy to do
(a), (b), or (c).

(See http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cri18.htm)

There is also civil provision that allows private parties to sue for triple damages. This might incent a private party with deep pockets who was harmed to the tune of a couple of billions to turn down the "take a billion and go away" deal.

Silly logic.

[Razzak]

First of all, you're looking at 1999 data. The stock price of MSFT is a little lower now, so many of those options are worthless. Further, MSFT doesn't issue options anymore, so the risk of this is virtually gone.

If he's an accountant, he should know better than this.

First, I'm betting many of those options were granted in the 1998-2000 years when everyone was option crazy. Now that the stock is half of what it used to be, those options are now worthless.

So, you're telling me MSFT has granted 53 billion in options to it's employees? Hardly. Assuming the options were granted at FMV, and assuming MSFT's stock price increases to say, $30.30 and it's $25.00 now, that means they have issued 10,000,000,000 options to employees? Give me a break.

Not only that, but those cash reserves are coupled with zero debt. A company like MSFT and it's proven revenue stream can significantly lever up. Just glancing at MSFT they made an ebitda of 12 billion, indicating to me they could probably hold debt with an interest of 4-6 billion a year. Assuming they get a 7% interest rate (that's a random guess, it's probably much lower for MSFT) that's like, 80+ billion in debt they could easily hold with their company. So, unless these dangerous outstanding options are going to have a value in excess of 120 billion, I think MSFT is just fine.

Me, I'm not even an accountant (Finance and International Relations Major) and I can give a rough estimate in looking at Yahoo's analysis of MSFT in a few seconds. *Please*, don't listen to this guy, and don't listen to me. If you want reliable information on a subject matter, go to a trusted source. Not someone with a website or with a /. account.

Quality...

[Hanzie]

Funnily enough, this thread is on topic. Like MS software fans, there are adherents of "american cars" who are unaware that their favorite attributes exist in other cars. I think that the Toyota Supra is rear wheel drive. In fact, I'm pretty sure of it. The MR2 is definetly rear wheel drive - it's rear engined.

In a like vein, a friend of mine actually works for MS, and he is totally unable to see beyond the "shareware junk slapped together by a thousand idiots" line. He even runs an extremely successful website for a subset of car nuts, and has no interest in making his websites accessible to that 'tiny minority of nuts who don't run IE'.

He's an OK guy, but he just can't see outside of the box he's in.

Interesting note: there's another parallel between cars and computers. Toyota has been working on the "Toyota production system" for 40 years now. It is a completely different way of building cars (and everything else) and it has some amazing parallels to open source software.

The system, also called "Shingo" after the man who started it, has saved Porche from bankruptcy. Toyota makes no secret about their system, and even sends out instructors to anybody who wants them.

In a nutshell, it's continuous improvement with totally flexible production systems and just in time manufacturing.

No long production runs, because you're buried in useless parts if you make an engineering improvement. Kind of sounds like "release early, release often" doesn't it?

Software is easy to change and update, because the incremental production cost is close to zero. Physical car parts cost money, but if they're only made in runs of 1/100th the normal size, it only costs 1/100th as much in obsolete parts to change something.

Those actually in production are able to make changes in the manufacturing process to suit their own needs (required to, actually). Kind of like free software lets you make changes too.

Toyota's Shingo system and Free Software's open system do have many things in common, and it's no suprize that they're both taking huge bites out of their competition.

Toyota has an advantage, however, in that it makes oodles of money, and is competing in a still-fragmented market. MS is a behemoth, and has the power to write it's own laws in the US.

P.S. I see the above in action every day where I work (Not Toyota, just a company consiously emulating them)