Microsoft Antitrust Oversight Ends

dcblogs writes "The US Department of Justice remedies supervision in the Microsoft antitrust case ends Thursday, closing the landmark case, which began in 1998. But the questions posed by trial federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's attempted remedy remain: Did tech innovation suffer over the last 10 years because Microsoft wasn't broken up? 'Not really,' said Vinton Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist, 'It has to do with the fact that open source has become such a strong force in the software world.'"

Comments

When did it actually start?

[gearloos]

It never actually started.

Re:When did it actually start?

[x*yy*x]

I find it funny that Google spokesman says that. I posted this in other article, but it fits this one perfectly

I would find it interesting if Google opened up their search engine code. They claim it is beneficial for companies to open source their products and keep customers by offering better services than others. It's an interesting claim from a company whose main product is closed.

After all, by not opening up their search engine and data they're the ones pushing out competitors on the area just by Google's enormous size. No one else can ever get close to that kind of usage data, hence Google will always dominate the field. At least Bing is still somewhat holding on now, but it's the last one in western world.

However, I'm glad Yandex is still holding on in Russia and Baidu in China. At least Google has some competition. And it wont replace those easily.

Re:When did it actually start?

[spire3661]

Do you even know who Vinton Cerf is?

Re:When did it actually start?

[x*yy*x]

Yes I know who he is. How does that matter in the discussion? You completely avoided my questions by only saying no one should disagree with him just because he has some merits on him.

Re:When did it actually start?

[Doc Ruby]

Yes, the guy who was a good engineer 40 years ago when he was in the right place at the right time to properly design a fundamental internet protocol that has stayed relevant ever since.

That's why he's a Google evangelist, not a Google engineer.

Besides, I spent all afternoon in his DC office about 5 years ago. He's also a top Google bullshitter. His position on Microsoft's monopoly effect is entirely based on whatever lobbying position Google has taken this week.

He certainly doesn't have indisputable assertion powers.

Re:When did it actually start?

[metalmaster]

If Google opened up their search engine wouldn't it just allow developers to make clones?

If im not mistaken, the meat of a search engine is the algorithms that organize compiled results. If you copy Google's search algorithms, your search produces results identical to those of a Google search. How is that innovative? How does Google keeping their algorithms to themselves stifle innovation? Additionally, if Google open-sourced their search engine it would allow a SEO to see exactly how things tick and exploit Google's advertising arm. That'd make it even more useless than it already is.

Re:When did it actually start?

[Anonymous Coward]

he's that EVIL GUY who supports NET NUTRALITY which of course is ANTI CONSUMER and ANTI BUSINESS

er um.. at least thats what the comcast commercials say

Re:When did it actually start?

[Dhalka226]

They claim it is beneficial for companies to open source their products and keep customers by offering better services than others. It's an interesting claim from a company whose main product is closed.

That only applies to fields where you actually can offer better service. The value of a search engine is entirely based on the quality of the results. A company like Red Hat can open its code and yet still make a decent profit by offering support contracts and other custom services, while the open source nature, at least potentially, improves that core product.

If they release their code and all the data that helps their results be better, how, exactly, can Google differentiate themselves from the field? "We have a prettier website!" Yeah, no.

Open sourcing core products works for some fields, but not all of them. Pretending they're all equivalent doesn't make it so.

Re:When did it actually start?

[gad_zuki!]

Well said. People quickly forget that when a high profile employee speaks, hes just giving verbatim the position he'd paid to take. He's not some freewheeling loudmouth who does what he wants. Its employer/employee relationaship all the way down.

Re:When did it actually start?

[VortexCortex]

If Google opened up their search engine wouldn't it just allow developers to make clones? If im not mistaken, the meat of a search engine is the algorithms that organize compiled results. If you copy Google's search algorithms, your search produces results identical to those of a Google search. How is that innovative? How does Google keeping their algorithms to themselves stifle innovation? Additionally, if Google open-sourced their search engine it would allow a SEO to see exactly how things tick and exploit Google's advertising arm. That'd make it even more useless than it already is.

No, that's the brains of a search engine. The "meat" of a search engine is the database that is created using the algorithms... Google open sourcing their code would allow others to build a Google, but with empty data sets... Ergo: It would be so far behind that it wouldn't just be non-innovative, it would be less relevant. With AGPL licensed Google search code release, competitors could add improvements to the code, but it would do them little good against Google (because Google would be able to take advantage of the innovation of others).

My conclusion is along the same lines as yours, Google's search source code is only worth anything if they also provide the dataset they've built up over the years, and even then competitors would have little incentive to improve the codebase if it means sharing the tech with Google.

Re:When did it actually start?

[LordLucless]

It'd aid innovation because people could then iteratively improve on Google's algorithms, ending with a better search system.

It'd also, as you say, lead to massive exploitation and the reduction of Google's search engine to a pile of flaming spam. Which is why I have no problem's with Google keeping their algo under wraps.

Re:When did it actually start?

[man_of_mr_e]

Actually, if google opened up its search engine, then result spamming would reach epic proportions. Spammers would know exactly how google ranks sites, and could then game the system to make erection pills show up for every result no matter what you entered.

Re:When did it actually start?

[clang_jangle]

Unless we're talking about Maximum Bob Lutz, of course.

Re:When did it actually start?

[Missing.Matter]

Isn't that equivalent to security by obscurity? I mean, after all the Linux kernel is open to anyone so Linux should be riddled with viruses, right?

Re:When did it actually start?

[webmistressrachel]

"make erection pills show up for every result no matter what you entered"... ... they're already doing a pretty good job at this, I think I would probably start building my own database if it got any worse... Google - Don't Open THAT Sauce, Please!

Re:When did it actually start?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody likes a poor thief.

Re:When did it actually start?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Make up an impossibly high standard that the actual open source movement isn't asking for (and that you conveniently don't apply to anyone else), then insinuate google are hypocrites and/or evil for not meeting the impossible standard. Open source isn't about demanding the stuff that only runs on someone else's servers, or demanding the contents of their databases. It's about wanting the source of stuff that's going to run on *my* machine, and wanting the interoperability protocols it uses to talk to yours.

Bonus points for failing at statistics (a representative sample of usage data suffices) and recent history (google came out of nowhere with a good algorithm, proving that market share in search isn't a perpetual thing, and that it can just as well be done again by someone else). It's feeling kind of shilly in here today.

Re:When did it actually start?

[The Dawn Of Time]

No, the post you responded to didn't even come close to saying anything like that.

Your entire argument seemed to center around the idea that Google should enable its own competition. How does that matter in any discussion ever?

Re:When did it actually start?

[billcopc]

Evangelist, bullshitter, to anyone with a working prefrontal cortex, are synonyms. The fact that corporations would associate a job title with the likes of Jimmy Swaggart and Jerry Falwell, that right there should raise a million red flags.

If you need to pay someone to convince people, you are selling lies, plain and simple. If they were providing verifiable facts, they'd be instructors, educators, professors... not evangelists.

Re:When did it actually start?

[DrgnDancer]

No, because it's a different principle. The Linux Kernel is designed to be secure. Insecurities are there as a result of bugs or mistakes. the algorithms are intended to run the computer in safe secure way. Many eyes looking at the code catches the bugs and mistakes (hopefully) before the bad guys find them and exploit them.

Google's algorithms are intended to rank pages a certain way. It's not a bug or mistake that they rank them in the manner they do, it's a heuristic attempt to apply rules that will give you the most useful results. Unfortunately, knowing exactly what those rules are will allow spammers to craft pages that better conform to them. It's not a bug that correlation (a) is considered more important than correlation (b), it's a deliberate decision designed to give the user more relevant results. If however I *know* that (a) is greater than (b) I can take advantage of that fact to create something artificially relevant.

Re:When did it actually start?

[SilasMortimer]

If you need to pay someone to convince people, you are selling lies, plain and simple.

I don't disagree with the fact of this, but I will say that it's a necessary thing in big business. Your competition will definitely engage in hyperbole. Answering with cold, hard facts can backfire. Ditto with politics, but they perhaps have a little more cushion, usually having at least a year before they have to fight for their job again.

In this post, I'm not defending anyone or condemning anyone. It's just something to consider.

Re:When did it actually start?

[man_of_mr_e]

No. It's like saying that people should play poker with their cards exposed. After all, if Poker was a secure game, knowing the cards shouldn't matter.

Poker becomes a useless exercise if someone KNOWS what the cards are. The same is true in search engine algorithms. If everyone knows the algorithm, then results can be gamed.

Re:When did it actually start?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that equivalent to security by obscurity? I mean, after all the Linux kernel is open to anyone so Linux should be riddled with viruses, right?

It's not so much a security as a strategy risk. It's more akin to forcing every business to keep their ongoing plans published for their competitors to read.

Re:When did it actually start?

[Daniel Phillips]

Yes I know who he is. How does that matter in the discussion? You completely avoided my questions by only saying no one should disagree with him just because he has some merits on him.

Actually I met him and I was impressed by neither his wit or charm. Given that he has proved so way, way wrong about IPv6, I would think there is a negative correlation between what he says and what is true.

Re:When did it actually start?

[Anonymous Coward]

It never actually started.

Actually it did; sort of. But it promptly ended when George W took office (and Microsoft started funding a lobbyist team).

Re:When did it actually start?

[hajus]

How would gpl'ing their search engine code make them release it? It's not like the binary is floating around as a torrent.

Re:When did it actually start?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, simply because there are millions to be made by gaming Google's search engine, where there's little money to be made in Linux viruses.

Re:When did it actually start?

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but this isn't a security issue, it's keeping your sampling unbiased. Think of a polling company saying "This is the list of random people we are going to call in a year, don't try to affect them in any way".

Re:When did it actually start?

[williamhb]

If Google opened up their search engine wouldn't it just allow developers to make clones? If im not mistaken, the meat of a search engine is the algorithms that organize compiled results. If you copy Google's search algorithms, your search produces results identical to those of a Google search. How is that innovative? How does Google keeping their algorithms to themselves stifle innovation? Additionally, if Google open-sourced their search engine it would allow a SEO to see exactly how things tick and exploit Google's advertising arm. That'd make it even more useless than it already is.

By that reckoning, we should never have bothered with Linux or championed any other open source equivalent of a proprietary system. Sorry, this is a cheap and somewhat contrived shot, but...

"If Unix opened up their operating system wouldn't it just allow developers to make clones? If I'm not mistaken, the meat of an operating system is the algorithms and code. If you copy Unix's algorithms, your system produces results identical to those of Unix. How is that innovative? How does Unix keeping their algorithms to themselves stifle innovation? Additionally, if Unix open-sourced their operating system it would allow hackers to see exactly how things tick and exploit Unix's security holes. That'd make it even more useless than it already is." (hypothetical rewriting of the same argument against a different system)

Re:When did it actually start?

[metalmaster]

You're applying my logic to a much more complex system. The complexities of an OS, or even an application, allow much more customization.

A search engine, from the outside in, consists of: a simple form, a dataset, and algorithms to sort the dataset. Different search providers may alter the webpage so it looks a bit different. They may substitute an image for the submit button. They'll make it feel different, but if they use Google's rank and file system odds are users will get the same results.

Contrast this to an application or an application suite. Microsoft Office and Open Office are used for the same purpose; document creation and editing. They are, by no means, identical to eachother in form and function though. MS Office provides some features that Open Office does not. They have a polished(depending on your tastes) interface. Open Office sticks with a simple interface and provides all of the functionality that one may need for general use.

If you look at the world of open-source office suites you'll find that OpenOffice is the probably the most popular. There are clones and forks out there that add little functionality beyond changing the splash screen. This is likely what would happen to google if they open-sourced their search components.

Re:When did it actually start?

[hairyfeet]

I do! He is Google's Chief Internet Evangelist for Google and gasp! surprise! he doesn't like Google's competition. I Mean seriously, what are the odds? I mean he and the company that pays him big fat checks actually agree! Of course the fact he cooked up a good idea 40 years ago makes him an expert on competition now, just as Senator McSellout and the rest of congress keep passing those *.A.A written laws because they really have the people's interests at heart and those big fat bribes....err...campaign contributions, are just a lovely coincidence!

C'mon dude, next you're gonna try to sell us that Ballmer is an expert on Linux code and we should take his word on Linux infringement because the guy has no reason to bullshit, right?

The reason the whole antitrust bullshit don't matter is VERY simple, okay? MSFT rules the desktop and most likely always will but the world isn't just desktops anymore just as once upon a time the world revolved around the IBM mainframe and while IBM still owns the mainframe market (hell are there even any other mainframe builder left?) that market is just a small slice to a MUCH bigger pie.

So frankly I'm glad its about to be over, maybe then MSFT can start bundling an AV instead of every OEM coming with trialware crap. Hell even in my little shop in the middle of nowhere the hot thing that everyone is asking about ain't laptops or desktops, but those CCC (Cheapo Chinese Crap) Cruz Micro 4Gb pads I just started picking up. They're cheap, have easier to read screens than a phone, simple to use, sure they ain't setting speed records but for web surfing they are fine and most importantly they are fun and a hell of a lot easier to carry around than a netbook.

MSFT missed the boat, the fat lady is down the street looking up where to get a sandwich or her new pad. Acting like they are the big bad is like saying the market is controlled by IBM. Hey maybe this means Linux guys can stop writing "M$" and acting like it is 1998? ...Naaah

Re:When did it actually start?

[DrXym]

If Google opened up their search engine wouldn't it just allow developers to make clones?

Worse it would allow SEO's, spammers, keyword squatters, religious cults and assorted other scumbags to completely topload and ruin the search results rendering them useless. Google is in a constant battle with these people.

Besides, who wants a bunch of search engines which return the same (and now polluted) set of results. Shouldn't each search engine take it's own approach to the problem? Bing manages to return pretty good results.

Re:When did it actually start?

[FranckMartin]

Vint co-invented the Internet, was co-founder of ISOC, first ICANN chairman, and I don't think Google tells him what he should say, Google has him on staff to help him pursue _his_ work. TCP/IP is an open standard at a time where there was only proprietary protocols, the whole IETF is based on equal participation by all. In a way this is what inspired the Open-Source movement.

He is also listened by all the world leaders.

But Vint biggest trick, he is an enabler of people and can inspire many and has inspired many.

So yes he has indisputable respect from the Internet community.

He is not always right, like any human being, but he is very well respected.

PS: fun fact, the architect in the matrix is taken as a model from him, another form of respect.

Re:When did it actually start?

[drinkypoo]

On the other hand, if you are employed because of what you want to say, then you can say what you want. And it's highly useful for Google to have someone with so much credibility attacking Microsoft's.

Re:When did it actually start?

[drinkypoo]

No, that's the brains of a search engine. The "meat" of a search engine is the database that is created using the algorithms...

No, that's really not true. The database is created by crawling which anyone can do. There are numerous parties who could afford to build a server farm as extensive as Google's and thanks to Google they know how to do it, too. The really important part of the search engine, the "meat" as the GP says, is your algorithms. They are in fact everything. Google claims and indeed for the most part behaves as if they depend on rules more than special cases, which contradicts your words utterly.

With AGPL licensed Google search code release, competitors could add improvements to the code, but it would do them little good against Google (because Google would be able to take advantage of the innovation of others).

Search code? What does that even mean?

Re:When did it actually start?

[williamhb]

If you look at the world of open-source office suites you'll find that OpenOffice is the probably the most popular. There are clones and forks out there that add little functionality beyond changing the splash screen. This is likely what would happen to google if they open-sourced their search components.

I think that's clearly not true. Apache Hadoop (an open source project) was explicitly based on the methods Google say they used in their search components, and it is used for much much more than just Google-clones. (How "new" map-reduce really was is debatable, but Google publishing a paper opening up their use of it sparked plenty of innovation.) And I'm sure Google have clustering code that would be of interest to everything from language analysis to scientific data analysis. etc, etc.

Re:When did it actually start?

[Daniel Phillips]

Interesting, it would seem there are mods going around taking shots at anyone who even hints that Vint Cerf might not be a god who automatically is right about everthing he says. I guess that would have to be a Googler. Invites the question, what does "being Googly" really mean? I do not think it means to some Googlers what you and I would reasonably expect it means.

Re:When did it actually start?

[Daniel Phillips]

But Vint biggest trick, he is an enabler of people and can inspire many and has inspired many.

Oh really? He turned me off completely. Must be a different Vint.

Re:When did it actually start?

[Daniel Phillips]

I think of him as the guy who brought us the train wreck that is IPv6.

Re:When did it actually start?

[yuhong]

Well, I wouldn't go that far, but if you need to control them from top-down, maybe.

Re:When did it actually start?

[Doc Ruby]

As I said, "I spent all afternoon in his DC office about 5 years ago. He's also a top Google bullshitter". He didn't inspire me to anything but skepticism of whatever he says in his paid work for Google, since what he told me (about certain patents and acquisitions that we were meeting about) was obvious bullshit, and was actually proven to be simply lies less than a month later when certain Google actions (completed and underway when we met) were made public in due course.

Cerf is influential, but not because his assertions are anything but the business position of Google, a rich and powerful corporation working to be "the next Microsoft", complete with monopoly privileges.

Re:When did it actually start?

[Doc Ruby]

Me too. Well not completely: I'd be happy to have him doing what he does for my business, if I were Google's owners/execs/directors. But not because what he says is true or even necessarily reasonable.

Good

[atomicbutterfly]

This means Microsoft can finally start bundling useful things like Microsoft Security Essentials in Windows 8 without being hounded by the feds.

Re:Good

[drb226]

My sarcasm detector is indecisive on this one.

Re:Good

[mjwx]

This means Microsoft can finally start doing the illegal things they've been doing behind closed doors out in the open, like strong arming suppliers without being hounded by the feds.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Good

[rolfwind]

This means Microsoft can finally start bundling useful things like Microsoft Security Essentials in Windows 8 without being hounded by the feds.

Yeah, because marrying Internet Explorer to Windows was a real winner in the security arena.

There are many reasons why stopping MS from bundling their solutions to all things the last decade was actually good for consumers.

Re:Good

[westlake]

This means Microsoft can finally start doing the illegal things they've been doing behind closed doors out in the open, like strong arming suppliers without being hounded by the feds.

Microsoft's "suppliers" - bu which I assume you mean its OEM and retail partners - have been crying all the way to the bank since Day 1.

Re:Good

[Gadget_Guy]

Yeah, because marrying Internet Explorer to Windows was a real winner in the security arena.

That is not a valid comparison. Internet Explorer (with its addition of Active-X controls) was an obvious security nightmare by design. On the other hand, Microsoft Security Essentials has been well received as a good, lightweight AV solution. Unlike IE, its inclusion in Windows would definitely increased security of the OS.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Government getting involved is the opposite of a free economy. There have been many failed nations that relied on legislation to control the market place and not a single one has survived, much less prospered. I hate to say it, but McCarthy was right, he just went about it the wrong way. Or do you still think your argument means something Comrade?

Re:Good

[SilasMortimer]

Are you saying it's okay that they're strong-armed because they've made money? Are you suggesting that those who have indeed made money did so because of strong arming by Microsoft?

To simplify: What are you talking about?

Re:Good

[ozmanjusri]

My sarcasm detector is indecisive on this one

How about expressing it differently:

"Microsoft now has a choice between making a secure OS, or bundling Security Essentials with their insecure OS."

Re:Good

[SilasMortimer]

Including any AV product in Windows would have increased the security of the OS. If Microsoft does bundle an AV package in Windows, it gets a ridiculously huge market advantage. If it successfully snowballs and takes out the competition, it doesn't have to be such a great solution anymore so they get lazy with it. A lot like just about every other Microsoft product bundled with Windows, of which Internet Explorer has, most times, been a very good example.

That's the point of antitrust cases.

Re:Good

[shermo]

You see, MSE had to be a good lightweight AV solution because people had to out of their way to download it. If it was bundled, why make it good?

I don't really believe that btw. I'm just trying to find a plausible explanation for a piece of Microsoft software being simple and useful.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

To simplify: What are you talking about?

Westlake is a regular Microsoft apologist, employed by Reputation Defender.

She always tries to derail real discussion about Microsoft's damaging practices, but there's never any real content to her postings.

Re:Good

[Penguinoflight]

He's probably referring to the relationship of an OEM who is granted an illegal discount.

On the one hand this company now has fewer market options; in today's market this is a minor inconvenience and often a blessing in disguise; global markets don't favor companies that have a hundred mediocre solutions.

The OEM's advantage to receiving illegal discounts regards how this effects potential competition - if Microsoft or Intel offer the big players half-off for their exclusivity agreements the barrier to entry climbs for small businesses. This can create a situation where an individual will spend more on the components of a computer than the complete product with support agreements from one of these laughing OEMs.

The lucrative situation doesn't make this any less wrong, it still hurts consumers and small businesses alike.

Re:Good

[Penguinoflight]

I'm not against Microsoft including anti-virus software with their OS; to me there's a difference between features (like IE) and protection (like, well not microsoft security essentials).

MSE doesn't currently have a positive impact on OS security, and it won't even if it's built in. Currently popular viruses aren't even detected by MSE and the ones that are usually aren't removable. Sure, it's better than McCafe but given the ready availability to users it's the first AV targeted by virii, and it isn't very well protected from rogue processes.

Even with improvements over XP, windows 7 is a basically insecure platform; UAC was a good idea, but it doesn't work and it's not enough alone. Code signing isn't a valid solution when "trusted" CA's are only in it for the money and they're in a market position where failure increases their potential future market. Lowering exploit counts and making a workable UAC would be time better spent by Microsoft.

Re:Good

[rolfwind]

That is not a valid comparison. Internet Explorer (with its addition of Active-X controls) was an obvious security nightmare by design. On the other hand, Microsoft Security Essentials has been well received as a good, lightweight AV solution. Unlike IE, its inclusion in Windows would definitely increased security of the OS.

Of course it's a valid comparison. What happened to IE when it reached 90%+ marketshare? It stagnated like crazy. You don't think that will happen to an A/V package that's automatically bundled in and will get predominant marketshare just by virtue of riding some coattails?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

How is some jackass spouting off about something he has no insight into based on pure rabid dweeby hatred of Microsoft "insightful". I'm sure this asshole has some concrete evidence of said strong arming and illegal activities, right? I'm kidding - assholes like you never have any evidence, just blathering bullshit.

Re:Good

[RightSaidFred99]

I find it ironic you're questioning his comment based on the ridiculous assumption that what "some guy on the internet" says about Microsoft's supposed strong-arming (illegal, no less!) is true.

Re:Good

[RightSaidFred99]

"Illegal discounts"? What in the world are you on about? Are you seriously getting on Slashdot and whining about volume pricing agreements? Jesus Christ, that's stupid even for the Interwebs.

God damn, the just insane _shit_ you people come up with and then go on the Internet to proudly post to the world is just amazing to me.

Re:Good

[SilasMortimer]

Then you need to work on your sense of irony. If it's untrue that Microsoft uses such strong-arm tactics, then say that. However, the comment did not dispute what the post it was responding to claimed, rather it alluded to results, implying agreement. The overall implication appeared to be, "Unfair? So what?"

I am not making the claim that Microsoft uses strong-arm tactics, neither am I making a claim against it. However, if someone takes the position that they do and that it's a good thing, I take issue with that.

Try to keep up, some guy on the Internet.

Re:Good

[SilasMortimer]

And tell me: In what country is the economy completely lawless? All countries, including the United States, have regulations on business practices. (Try to open a restaurant with improper kitchen ventilation or even something as simple as the wrong sized sink.) Most countries, including the United States, have some sort of attempt at legal protections for both consumers and competitors. Even McCarthy wouldn't have completely opposed that.

To those who support economic anarchy, I must ask the same question that I ask social anarchists: What would prevent anarchy from remaining anarchic, without some sort of oligarchy forming after everything settles?

Re:Good

[Gadget_Guy]

The first time I ever came across complaints about an operating system ruining somebody's market by bundling the functionality in an update was back on the Amiga. Whenever an OS gets more features then you are bound to negatively impact someone. But is that a good reason not to do it?

Vista introduced a much improved firewall that previously required the purchase of a third party solution. Sucks for the likes of ZoneAlarm, but shouldn't a good OS have a firewall as standard? It is the same for anti-virus technology. Security is something that is entirely appropriate to be handled by the operating system.

As long as they keep the API for the other AV solutions to hook into, then there is nothing wrong with providing a default option. Sure it is essential to have competition to spur things on, but Microsoft do have an incentive to not let MSE stagnate: the more viruses that slip through, the less secure it make the entire operating system seem.

Re:Good

[SilasMortimer]

You know, you're right. Looking at what I wrote, I kind of regressed to a time years ago when the choice was Microsoft or nuthin' for most people and decisions like what they bundled with their OS mattered more for many reasons, one being their market domination, another being limited disk space, etc.

There was a time when this mattered more, really.

Re:Good

[Gadget_Guy]

Currently popular viruses aren't even detected by MSE and the ones that are usually aren't removable.

All the comparisons that I have seen have placed MSE in the middle if the pack. Not the best, but by no means the worst. I am not aware of any reports of any major viruses slipping by Microsoft's solution.

UAC was a good idea, but it doesn't work and it's not enough alone.

I find that the UAC works fine, but you are right that it is not enough alone. It is not an excuse to keep running as an administrator account. Using a standard account, it provides for easy elevation without having to plan ahead with "Run As Administrator" to manually gain higher permissions.

Re:Good

[mjwx]

"Illegal discounts"? What in the world are you on about?

What's illegal isn't the discount, it's what they ask in payment.

I.E. unless you agree to never sell one of our competitors products, we will charge you full retail pricing, which is about 5 times what your competitors are charging. In effect they remove the ability of a manufacturer to compete by denying them the special deals that their competitors receive. As a monopoly, this is quite easy to do.

It's those sort of proviso's are illegal and as the GP said, hurt both consumers and business alike.

Re:Good

[jimicus]

For practical purposes it still opens up all sorts of issues. Taking AV as the example, let's say for the sake of argument MS do bundle Security Essentials with Windows 8 and it does force (at least domestic AV products) out of the market. That sort of thing is not going to have hordes of people rushing to download Ubuntu, regardless of how mature Ubuntu is.

Re:Good

[jimicus]

They bought it as part of an acquisition and haven't had time to mess it up yet.

Re:Good

[SilasMortimer]

Er... what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

Re:Good

[elrous0]

Yes, we need to look at the example of a competitor like Apple, who wouldn't DREAM of bundling their web browser, or any other of their own apps, with their OS.

Oh, wait...

Re:Good

[elrous0]

Yes, because Apple doesn't do that at all. Nope, MS is the only one who bundles their browser, apps, or security suite with their OS. Just them.

Re:Good

[SilasMortimer]

Read my later comment. Nonetheless, Apple is not and has never been in the position of market dominance that Microsoft (at least) once was.

How many people have to have that spelled out for them when discussing antitrust?

Re:Good

[elrous0]

Except MS is no longer under antitrust investigation. It's over.

Re:Good

[SilasMortimer]

Arguably, they no longer have the same market dominance.

We'll see, though. If that continuing case was keeping them honest at all and they're able to use what market dominance they do have to stifle competition (again), they'll be back in court eventually. What makes me have doubts that this will happen is that the truly genius snake-in-the-grass (Gates) no longer makes decision for Microsoft. Anyone else is likely to bungle the attempt.

Re:Good

[Magius_AR]

That's the point of antitrust cases.

I'm eager for the antitrust case against Apple. Anyday now......

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Your fire has inflamed me and this I must confess:
It's why my penis makes this mess.
Not enough time in Eartha's Closet
What's that you say, you need my wallet?

I am Loki, I am Odin, or perhaps just a flower, YOU should remember your place Thor and weakness to my power
From duh YaST0r to apt-get, me kde is always fux0red cuz I'z to stupid to use ratpoison I can't code, and I play guitar like crap
What's that, NO SOUL? Welcome to the CIA, please assign this bug to yourself, and don't get caught
Industrial Strength Houston Texas Mental Health Care - "bringing a whole new level of abusive DSM-IV-TR false science"

Panther poo, please revisit what Lori taught about getting people to respond.
Oh fuck, "Nobody is following Constantinos yet"

Same password on all accounts still? Bummer. Better hurry.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I misjudged you, You are a genius - "Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt."
http://www.youtube.com/user/pandarsson#p/a/u/2/GCgFh5zv4hM

I got to say I have sympathy for you, living with that fucking corexit from the GOM (domestic terrorism right there), working at the Houston Farmers Market, I don't blame you for your fantasy of wearing your Sisters doll clothes around your cock as a child. You have truly been tortured, I get it, growing up in the South.

Life is short, you took the punches, and you are now a neo pagan, stand tall and carry a big stick, I love all pagans so I will leave you the fuck alone because you made that decision alone. You have truly freed your mind if you are truly pagan, you know where you are going to go when you die, your religion can bend with ANY and I mean ANY new information or facts, you have made the right decision. You CARE about others. While I don't really understand why you would fuck with me about the topic I was trying to help others, it really doesn't matter in the big picture, as you well know, some people are not going to wake up, some people just aren't meant to be woken up. Something you might enjoy however is Michael Tsarion if you really are initiated in the Craft

Have a nice life now, you won't hear from me again (I am done with my account here), but before I leave, please fix your fucking passwords before someone else finds what I did.

blessed be fellow pagan

Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[spaceplanesfan]

"Did tech innovation suffer over the last 10 years because Microsoft wasn't broken up? 'Not really,' said Vinton Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist, 'It has to do with the fact that open source has become such a strong force in the software world.'""

Sure, open source is strong, but you claim that Microsoft didn't make tech innovation suffer?
And what about all these small OSes that died?
What about all these small firms that made competing programs and were crushed by Microsoft?
Really, I am not a Google hater by any means, but I don't like that.
(And I don't like that they didn't release Honeycomb source regardless of excuses they provide.)

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[dragonhunter21]

Google stated yesterday that it will not release the source code for Android 3.0 (Honeycomb) until after the release of the next version of Android (Ice Cream Sandwich).

Emphasis mine.

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[BradleyUffner]

"Did tech innovation suffer over the last 10 years because Microsoft wasn't broken up? 'Not really,' said Vinton Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist, 'It has to do with the fact that open source has become such a strong force in the software world.'""

Sure, open source is strong, but you claim that Microsoft didn't make tech innovation suffer?
And what about all these small OSes that died?
What about all these small firms that made competing programs and were crushed by Microsoft?
Really, I am not a Google hater by any means, but I don't like that.
(And I don't like that they didn't release Honeycomb source regardless of excuses they provide.)

Would Open Source be as strong as it is today if there hadn't been a common enemy for people with that sort of ideology to rally against? I don't know what the answer is, but it's an interesting question.

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[spaceplanesfan]

That sadly doesn't matter.
You know it likely that we will see source of windows and probably even with a permissible licence like BSD or GPL some 100 years in the future.
The fact that they didn't release it at same time when devices running it were shipped isn't good.
I am not saying that Google is officially evil due to that fact, but its just not good move.
I have a tablet with android 2.1 BTW, and would love to update, and I did plenty of RE to do that.

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[Archangel Michael]

This has been my position for a few years now. Linux's success can be partially put on the shoulders of Microsoft. To mangle a Voltaire quote ""If Linux did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it". Linux was and is the best foil against Microsoft. Today, it is running in thousands of places where Windows and Microsoft Products aren't nor could be. Microsoft is a Windows company (I've said it before), they have one product that makes them money, and that is Microsoft Windows / Office ecosystem. Everything they do, is built around Windows.

The web, (and Google, Apple) are going to slowly eat away at the desktop marketshare of Windows in such a way that most people will miss it. It is already happening. We have Laptops and Android/iPhones that do much of what we need done day to day. And with iPad and Android tablets, they are going to further eat into desktop market.

This is why I think that Skype is going to die a slow painful death, perhaps everywhere but on Windows. It will become a Windows only product, and die on the dying market. Don't get me wrong, windows will be around for a long long time. But its influence is diminishing, but will never go away.

And all of that is made possible by Microsoft Domination in the 90s that gave rise to a little known hobby OS created by a kid in Finland. Because it was free.

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is a Windows company (I've said it before), they have one product that makes them money, and that is Microsoft Windows / Office ecosystem.

And xBox (which, I suppose, could fall under Windows) is profitable now, no? (I don't think they've recouped their sunk costs from buy^H^Hreaking into the market yet though.)

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[betterunixthanunix]

You left one out:

What about all those architectures other than x86 that died or are irrelevant on the desktop because of the monoculture?

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[westlake]

And what about all these small OSes that died?

What about them?

MSDOS and Windows were sold at a mass market price - orginally, 1/5 that of CPM/86.

The Microsoft OS worked well on consumer-grade commodity hardware that was mid-line at the time of release and entry level a year or so later.

The Microsoft OS promised backwards compatibility and long-term support.

This is a damn good strategy when you are selling the PC as a big ticket home applicance or workhorse office machine.

All these forces combined with a non-exclusive OS license encouraged the production of an astonishing range of product for every price point and market niche.

Walmart.com currently lists 301 Win 7 laptops and 174 Win 7 desktops priced from $218 to $1850.

Hardware prices drop rapidly and specs become more and more impressive as you ramp up to mass production on a global scale - to serve what would become 1.5 billion or so Windows users.

Today, $1850 at Walmart buys a liquid-cooled i7-Extreme 64 bit Win 7 gaming system with 12 GB RAM and NIVIDIA GTX470 graphics.

The brand name "multi-core" laptop at Walmart.com is more likely to sell for less than $800.

In 1995 a Win 95 Packard Bell with a P-75, 8 MB RAM, a 545 MB HDD and 1 MB of integrated graphics, sold for about $1200.

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, open source is strong, but you claim that Microsoft didn't make tech innovation suffer?

Are you claiming that they did?

And what about all these small OSes that died?

They weren't innovative enough to be adopted by the masses, unlike say Linux.

What about all these small firms that made competing programs and were crushed by Microsoft?

So being beaten by a larger competitor harms innovation?

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[spaceplanesfan]

You left one out:

What about all those architectures other than x86 that died or are irrelevant on the desktop because of the monoculture?

Yep, and Intel is the hardware equivalent of Microsoft, and the fact that Windows runs on x86 only (I am aware of the fact that NT did run on Alpha, and few more arches, but MS removed that support later) helped them a lot.
In fact ARM still can't get a share on the desktop precisely due to lack of MS support.

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[RightSaidFred99]

Well, to be fair ARM is also dog shit slow. That kind of hurt it.. It's got a great power usage envelope, but it's slow. And this idea that the world wants 10 different CPU architectures for mainstream computing is laughable tripe.

We'll see if the same assholes are whining in 5 years when ARM is the only architecture used for anything mobile. Somehow I doubt we'll here this claptrap nonsense about a "monoculture", these assholes tend to love ARM.

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[Alex Belits]

Oh wow! If there was ever a Microsoft shill more obvious than this one -- he doesn't even pretend to write anything relevant to the issue being discussed, and just copy-pastes marketing drivel.

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[gbjbaanb]

or, to put that correctly:

"Did tech innovation suffer over the last 10 years because Microsoft wasn't broken up? 'Yes,' said Vinton Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist, 'but it's ok because open source has become such a strong force in the software world."

small, but signiifcant difference. At the time I thought it made a lot of sense to keep MS together - consistency in their products and de-facto standards were good, but now I know I was wrong. A broken-up Microsoft could have made much more of their various divisions that didn't lock themselves into their own ecosystem. Think how we could have Visual Studio for Android today.

And they don't have much consistency in their own apps now anyway!

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[gtall]

It isn't clear to me that breaking MS up would have given us Visual Studio for Android. Breaking up MS would not have changed the culture of the pieces. They would still act like a monopoly, only it would have been harder to point to since they'd have claimed to be independent. I think of MS as more or less a criminal organization, at least they seem to have a criminal mind. I do not think there is any fixing it.

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[gbjbaanb]

I don't know - sure, at first they woudl have,but it doesn't take much for some guys to get excited about some non-microsoft technology (eg iPhones :) ) and think they want to develop for it as well. After a few years the ties to the old parent would start to fray and by now (over a decade later) we probably would have them able to make autonomous decisions.

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[tbannist]

If you think of them as a criminal organization, then you need to consider whether it's better to have all the criminals working for one boss, or to have a bunch of different bosses, who while they may sometimes work together spend a lot of time fighting one another. It seems to me that with a number of different bosses, the time they spend attacking one another is time they're not attacking everyone else.

I know Bush snatched defeat from the jaws of victory when he sabotaged the case against Microsoft, but it still rankles that he was lauded for being such a crass sellout.

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[drinkypoo]

Motorola demanded Android 3 before it was ready. Google responded. This implies that they had an contractual obligation to do so. They do not want to support this release in the wild, which is the position they will be placed in if they release it, whatever you might say or hope or dream. Google is dumb and Motorola is an ass and the people who bought those Motorola devices are useful idiots. Can I have my lemon cookie now?

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[spaceplanesfan]

I hope that this is the case.
In general I like Google, and hope that it won't turn evil.
(Well everyone is somewhat evil. I mean it won't turn as evil as other corporations)

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[npsimons]

What about all those architectures other than x86 that died or are irrelevant on the desktop because of the monoculture?

I miss MIPS and Alpha; at least there's still ARM.

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[betterunixthanunix]

And this idea that the world wants 10 different CPU architectures for mainstream computing is laughable tripe.

What "the world wants" and what would work well are not always in alignment. This whole "one architecture to rule them all" situation has resulted in a lot of friction -- better architectures cannot get a foothold, developers do not write portable software, a certain popular desktop operating system is forced to maintain compatibility with old software that is extremely poorly written, etc. Had we had 3-5 popular desktop architectures over the past decade, I think it is safe to say that we would have had an easier time escaping bad designs in both hardware and software, and moving on to better designs.

We'll see if the same assholes are whining in 5 years when ARM is the only architecture used for anything mobile

First of all, it is rude to refer to people you disagree with as "assholes," and second of all, yes, having one architecture rule an entire class of computers is a bad thing regardless of who makes the architecture. x86 didn't win on the desktop because it was the best architecture around, and ARM is not necessarily the best mobile architecture.

Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was one of those:

What about all these small firms that made competing programs and were crushed by Microsoft?

And it is now clear that the US and EU investigations have been infiltrated and subverted to make sure that the (illegal) global war against "these small firms" (making the innovation stolen by MSFT) will never ever be sanctioned.

That's what lobbying is for:

“Schumpeter criticized the ‘corruption eruption’ in business (May 1st), but I wonder if
we really are on such moral high ground. In foreign countries, businesses pay bribes;
in America, they contribute to political campaign funds. That could be a distinction
without a difference.” -- Robert Kennedy, The Economist – May 27th 2010

God Bless America. And the U.S. Dollar.

And now it's Apple's turn

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that we are 'done' with MS, it's high time Apple is brought to justice. Not for monopoly, but for their extreme anti-competitive approach to anything post Mac era.

"FTFY," said Vinton Cerf, ...

[Samantha Wright]

said Vinton Cerf, one of the fundamental architects of the technology that has shaped human experience in the past thirty years and also Google's chief Internet evangelist.

I guess Computer World doesn't do much background checking on the people they interview for robot-like micro-snippets?

Re:"FTFY," said Vinton Cerf, ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so he designed a protocol once-upon-a-time. What has he done since then?

Re:"FTFY," said Vinton Cerf, ...

[krizoitz]

Yeah so? Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have both done the same, does that make them saints we shoudl always listen to on anything tech related? I have a feeling you might disagree with them on a few things.

Re:"FTFY," said Vinton Cerf, ...

[Samantha Wright]

S'just a question of proper attribution, is all.

Re:"FTFY," said Vinton Cerf, ...

[Alex Belits]

So is Bob Metcalfe (formally, ever more so because with a very small exception every IP packet transmitted over any kind of a network had passed through at least one Ethernet segment, yet plenty of Ethernet frames are used for protocols other than IP). And he wrote plenty of things that are wrong or stupid.

Re:"FTFY," said Vinton Cerf, ...

[Samantha Wright]

And that accomplishment should be attached to Metcalfe's name, even when he says dumb things.

The fact that Vint Cerf has been in the business for that long contributes greatly to who he is, which is why (according to others in this comment thread) Google bought his soul and now uses him as a finger puppet.

If Albert Einstein were credited as "a government scientist and former patent clerk" when interviewed, and not "one of the fathers of modern physics," most would get a little annoyed about that, even though he said countless stupid things in his later years. Even if you or I may not agree with him (or if Computer World has selectively butchered the quote entirely, which honestly isn't out of the question) he deserves respect for what he's done.

i dont buy any of this

[decora]

if it hadn't been for this anti-trust case, Microsoft would have crushed Apple like a bug, just like it did all it's other competitors before it. Anyone remember Wordperfect? Do you remember the guys who invented the spreadsheet? Anyone remember the company who invented visual programming? Anyone remember the company that put out the first commercial web browser? Anyone remember GEOS? BeOS??

Instead, Microsoft had to actively support Apple, including the massive investment in porting Office to Mac, release after release, even through Apple's transition to a BSD-like subsystem. Why? Because Microsoft didn't want to get sued again. That's the only reason it has allowed Linux to live; SCO was just a test fire to see if Linux would blink. Now comes the Patent Wars, which will crush Linux into the dirt.

No hedge fund shareholder of Microsoft is going to put up with this open source hippie bullshit. They are, instead, going to scream out and pound the podium: "Law and fucking order!". And that is who controls Microsoft and other public IT companies - shareholders, banks, hedge funds, funds of funds, etc. None of them understand open source, they barely understand copyright law. What they do understand is the law of the jungle. Kill or be killed. And all of this Linux shit is getting in the way of their profit margins.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you remember the guys who invented the spreadsheet?

Yes. And they'd be the first people to say that Lotus was the company that killed them. And when MS pretty much crushed Lotus (till IBM took them over), it was karma coming back to them.

BeOS failed because there were no apps and it ws over-hyped as this "modern" OS. It was cool, for sure..

Wordperfect?!? Pft. It sucked. MS jumped on the GUI bandwagon first while WP was still pushing their very expensive backward product. Wordperfect killed Wordperfect

Re:i dont buy any of this

[Rhodri Mawr]

Lotus made more from 1-2-3 when they sued Borland over elements of QuatroPro than they ever made from software license sales.

There's plenty more of that coming in the next few years...

The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun, the IP War has!

Re:i dont buy any of this

[UnknowingFool]

Directly the antitrust trial didn't do anything to MS. Indirectly MS had to tread lightly to avoid punishments for the next decade. Their competitors no longer fear them as they once did. Also the trial brought to light some of MS' dirty tricks. I think MS still wants to pull the same dirty tricks as before but few in the industry take them as seriously as they recognize them. There was a time when a competing product could be killed just because MS announced they were thinking about making the same product. Take for example last February when Ballmer showed off all these Windows 7 tablets at CES 2010. It was going to be the year of tablets according to Ballmer. He was right but it would be Apple and not MS that would take the market. In years past, some in the industry might have waited for Windows tablets to start launching at the end of the year but today many didn't wait and bought iPads.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Crushing competitors isn't equivalent to innovation suffering, despite popular conflation of the such terms. If said 'crushing' is done by society choosing one provider substantially over another, then it is very rare that innovation to societal preferences is not being served. On the other hand, if it is not done by society and instead a select few(and done through force, at that) as exemplified by your mention about linux and patent legal action, then it is almost always the case. In most instances in US history, any response anti-trust action is mob rallying politicking or witch hunts set in motion by less able competitors. (http://mises.org/books/fleming.pdf and more importantly http://mises.org/Books/antitrust.pdf)

So the problem is teasing out these different actions and not glossing over how significantly different they are in determining which providers we have serve our desires. Understanding both in abstract theory and implementation how these two distinct actions serve us is very important.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[maztuhblastah]

the massive investment in porting Office to Mac, release after release, even through Apple's transition to a BSD-like subsystem.

Yeah, about that...Office for Mac was never a port.

It's existed as a separate, independent codebase ever since the 80's. The MBU shares file format specs with the Office team proper, but there's virtually no code overlap.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[man_of_mr_e]

Please. You really have no idea how the industry works, and why some companies thrive and some die. I'll give you a hint, there's one reason, and one reason only that tech companies die. And it has little to do with Microsoft (though certainly, they have their hand in it).

That reason, is that they fail to provide a product that consumers want. Microsoft is really good at making consumers want it's products, thus it gives people what they want, and people buy it. Let's look at your examples.

Wordperfect? They sat on their laurels after Windows was released, were late with a Windows product, and that product sucked and their existing userbase did not like it. They failed, time and again, to produce a product that their customers wanted in the GUI world. They ruled DOS, but they miscalculated how quickly DOS would die, and how people would quickly jump ship to a better product. In other words, Wordperfect created suicide. Later owners of the technology didn't do a lot to differentiate it from the by then dominant Word. Then, the companies that owned the technology did not put enough money behind it, and they would sell it off again and again before it could gain traction.

The guy that invented the spreadsheet is Dan Bricklin, and Visicalc was killed by Lotus. Microsoft didn't even have a decent spreadsheet until years after Visicalc was dead.

visual programming? I don't think that term means what you think it means. I'd be interested to know what company you're talking about.

The first commercial web browser? That was Spry. They sold a product called "Internet in a box", derived from NCSA Mosaic. This product existed and died before Microsoft even entered the market. So i have to wonder exactly how it was that Microsoft killed them. Spyglass was the next, and though they licensed the name Mosaic and technology from NCSA, they never used any of the code and wrote everything from scratch. It's true that Microsoft was the cause of their destruction, but it was because Microsoft out-developed them. They had 1000 Developers on the IE team, and spyglass had 20. None of this had anything to do with anti-competitive behavior, other than that Microsoft could use it's massive war chest to out-develop everyone else, and frankly there is no law against that.

You should really read http://www.ericsink.com/Browser_Wars.html as that covers it pretty well.

GEOS? Are you freaking kidding me? That was an 8086 based task switching system, no memory management, etc.. it did a lot, sure.. but they didn't have the resources to make that into any kind of major product.

Finally, we get to BeOS. BeOS was killed by Apple, not Microsoft. Ok, Microsoft may have leveled the killing blow, but apple crippled them to the point that a toddler could have killed them. Why? Because BeOS was positioning itself to be the next MacOS. They thought it was a done deal, until apple went behind their back and bought NeXT instead (just noticed, both of those have 3 capital letters and one lowercase, an e in both cases). Be had put all it's eggs in the Apple basket, and apple crushed them. In a last ditch effort, they decided to port to x86, but they were already a dead man walking and only had a handful of developers doing all the work. They couldn't support a commercial OS with that.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[similar_name]

Yeah, about that...Office for Mac was never a port.

Just considering that Excel came out on the Mac 2 years before the Windows version (the first Windows version being 2.05 to align with the Mac version) I would have to agree with you.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Directly the antitrust trial didn't do anything to MS.

It sure did. You wouldn't even imagine the amount of red tape within the company that is a direct result of this - legal watch everyone like hawks, and God have mercy on your soul if you checked in a line of code that uses an undocumented API in a different component.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, this freedom shit is starting to get very annoying.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[yuhong]

The early versions was indeed never a port, but with Office 4.x they decides to merge the teams and share a lot of code, which caused a lot of backlash. This caused MS to create the MacBU which developed Office 98 for Mac and later.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so sure the Ludwig von Mises Institute will provide nothing but the most rational scientific analysis completely detached from ideological slant. It's not like they're a self-professed libertarian outfit that's out to promote laissez faire capitalism over all other considerations or anything.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Before Apple's relatively recent surge beginning with the iPod, Microsoft (and particularly Bill Gates) always seemed to appreciate having them around, like having a genius classmate who would help you ace your courses while having a knack of not getting his own work turned in on time. Remember, Microsoft needs to keep coming up with new angles to get people to upgrade their five-year old PC's, and Steve Jobs has been consistently brilliant at that.

The joke was that Apple was Microsoft's advanced R&D department. Maybe they still are.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[similar_name]

None of this had anything to do with anti-competitive behavior, other than that Microsoft could use it's massive war chest to out-develop everyone else, and frankly there is no law against that.

To a point. When you use your massive war chest to create a product that you give away for free just to cut revenue of a competitor (to put them out of business) then antitrust violation of the law is up to judges to interpret. If you own 90%+ of a market and you refuse to sell (at wholesale prices) to any distributor that offers competing options then once again it's left to judges to interpret. The barrier to entry for software is naturally minimal. Microsoft consistently used their OS dominance to make that barrier artificially higher (whether they would've succeeded without these tactics is another debate altogether). Courts in multiple countries have agreed with that viewpoint although I admit I don't think they always did it for the right reasons. Sort of like sending Al Capone to jail for tax evasion, it wasn't the pinnacle of reasons he belonged behind bars but he deserved the punishment none the less.

Without the anti-trust judgement it is pure speculation how things would have turned out since. What we do know is that things moved on to cell phones and Internet 'portals' like Google while Windows remained dominant on PCs. Without the DOJ watching them it's difficult to say if/how MS would've leveraged Windows in these fields.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[bill_mcgonigle]

Right, Word 6 for Mac was a train wreck. It was said at the time that Microsoft wrote a WinAPI compatibility layer for MacOS.

And they were trying to sell to Mac users on Word 5.1, which was, frankly, a really great Mac application. There, I've said it, but that was back when Microsoft wasn't a company you wanted to hate.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[Anonymous Coward]

> the guys who invented the spreadsheet?

'Spreadsheets' have been used for decades, possibly longer. Perhaps you mean 'Computer Spreadsheets'. These have been around since the 1960s with such applications as 'Prosper', card pack input, printed spreadsheet output.

Or perhaps you meant 'Visual Spreadsheets' which was first done by VisiCalc. That was superseded by SuperCalc 2 and others, and eventually by Lotus-123, Quattro and then Excel.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[man_of_mr_e]

It should be noted that Netscape already gave the product away for free. If you read my link to Eric Sink's page, he says that this tactic on Netscapes part is part of what put them out of business.

Yes, it's illegal to use your war chest to drive a competitor out of buisness by giving away a free or below market cost product, *AND THEN RAISE THE PRICE AFTER THE COMPETITOR IS DEAD*. Microsoft only produced a product that they gave away at no additional cost, something Netscape was already doing before Microsoft even entered the market.

The browser tying argument is dead, and has been dead for ages. The court of appeal stripped overturned Jacksons findings on that.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[bill_mcgonigle]

GEOS? Are you freaking kidding me? That was an 8086 based task switching system, no memory management,

You and your fancy 16-bit 8086. I waited 15 minutes for the damn thing to load on my 64K 6510-based system! Frankly, in an age where Firefox needs 200MB of RAM to turn on, I'm astounded it worked at all, even though it was pretty painful to operate.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[similar_name]

I won't pretend my memory is perfect but I do seem to recall that Netscape was free for students but not for business. I want to say it's retail price for business was $49.99. This seems to support my memory as well as this one from 1998, 3 years after Internet Explorer 1.0.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[similar_name]

arghh.. it's = its

Re:i dont buy any of this

[man_of_mr_e]

Technically, yes. But you could download Netscape for free, from Netscapes Web or FTP site, and never pay a fee. Even if you were a business. There was nobody checking up on this. What's more, there was the "beta" clause, even businesses could run beta versions free, and there was always a beta version available.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[black3d]

Apologies. Posting to clear moderation. Had some mouse lag while moderating this insightful, and managed to hit "redundant" instead. :(

Re:i dont buy any of this

[Alex Belits]

Hey, look, Microsoft shills are pretending to argue with each other!

Re:i dont buy any of this

[similar_name]

Yes and technically it was Netscape's main source of revenue albeit that revenue never exceeded the interest Microsoft could draw from their cash on hand. Netscape also made some bad decisions but that doesn't excuse Microsoft from their behavior. It certainly didn't help when Intel's Vice President testified that a senior Microsoft executive told him their intent was to extinguish Netscape by cutting off their air supply. It was interesting to follow at the time as virtually everyone in the industry (remember double-stack and DOS 6.x?) lined up to testify against Microsoft (not always for altruistic reasons of course) and Microsoft started spending millions on lobbyist. Something they had pretty much not done at all before that point.

I don't think everything brought against Microsoft is/was valid , but as a whole Microsoft was spending most of their efforts in stifling competition as opposed to selling their own products on merit and cost. An attitude that saw Internet Explorer development nearly disappear once 95%+ market share was reached around 2003 not to return until features for other browsers (how long were tabs around before MS added them in IE 7) were so much better that people(consumers) didn't care if some sites didn't work because they were written exclusively for IE 6. How much time passed between XP and Windows Vista? If Microsoft had spent half as much time working on their own business as opposed to working to undermine the business model of others, perhaps the rest of the industry wouldn't have left them behind.

I honestly don't know what would've happened without Microsoft having to divert resources from undermining others to defending itself from anti-trust but I doubt they would've put those resources into 'innovating'. Microsoft innovation seems to me to be almost exclusively vendor lock. Had Microsoft been split into say two companies, one for applications and one for operating systems they would probably be doing better now than they are since those entities would then be able to focus on product instead of codependency.

It's just a thought and I don't necessarily want to argue it (because it's a stretch) but one could suggest that Microsoft did 'jack up the price' on Internet Explorer once the competition was gone by freezing development of IE for more than half a decade.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[drsmithy]

if it hadn't been for this anti-trust case, Microsoft would have crushed Apple like a bug, just like it did all it's other competitors before it.

Nope. Apple's revival was already beginning (ie: the first iMac) as the antitrust suit was filed.

Anyone remember Wordperfect? Do you remember the guys who invented the spreadsheet? Anyone remember the company who invented visual programming? Anyone remember the company that put out the first commercial web browser? Anyone remember GEOS? BeOS??

Yes. All beaten out by products that customers preferred.

Instead, Microsoft had to actively support Apple, including the massive investment in porting Office to Mac, release after release, even through Apple's transition to a BSD-like subsystem. Why? Because Microsoft didn't want to get sued again.

Apple and Microsoft don't even compete in the same market. Apple's survival (or lack thereof) would have had zero impact on Microsoft's monopoly status.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[drsmithy]

To a point. When you use your massive war chest to create a product that you give away for free just to cut revenue of a competitor (to put them out of business) then antitrust violation of the law is up to judges to interpret.

Note that there is not a single feature in Windows - or any other modern OS - this does not describe.

Used to be you had to pay for everything from a text editor to a TCP/IP stack and you had to glue the whole shebang together yourself like a patchwork quilt.

Do you _really_ think things were better then ?

Re:i dont buy any of this

[man_of_mr_e]

No, Netscapes main source of revenue was their Web *SERVER*, which they sold for many thousands of dollars per license. The browser was something they had to do to sell server licenses, because a server is useless without a client.

I'm sure netscape intended to one day capitalize the browser market, but they were too busy giving it away, and assumed the market would always be there. It wasn't.

Yes, Microsoft said many things. Don't you think the execs at google sit around and talk about how they're gong to crush iPhone and Bing? That's called propoganda, and it's what people have to believe in order to continue working on something. If they thought it would be second or third best, why bother?

Ironically, where Microsoft REALLY destroyed Netscape was when they shipped IIS with Windows NT at no additional cost, and kept improving it. Plus, they were being crushed on the open source side by Apache as well. Arguably, Apache did much more damage.

I disagree that Microsoft spent much of any effort stifling competition. The majority of their effort was spent in product development and marketing. You talk about various OEM contracts and what not, but do you really think Microsoft's 30,000 programmers had anything to do with that? Their sales staff was significantly smaller than their development staff.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[cbhacking]

That' not actually true anymore. tarting with 2008, a lot of the code started to be merged, and 2010 and 2011 are something like 80% the same codebase - the difference is just in the UI and the underpinnings that communicate with the OS, plus some additions to the Mac version to provide things that the Windows version expects to have in the OS (like COM/OLE).

Re:i dont buy any of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Ragarding Lotus, dBase and Wordperfect, up until Windows 3.1, those three where THE office applications. Back in the day, when you looked up for training in office applications you would only find 1-2-3, Dbase III+ and Wordperfect 6 courses. That's what you would find in almost all offices. And Windows was just a fancy shell to start the DOS windows.

No, what killed them was the combination of Windows 95 and MS killing DOS. And they did that because Office had a head start with the port to Win32, the new Windows API, thus undercutting the competition.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[weicco]

So you are saying MS should've helped their competition by producing a platform (DOS) for them?

Re:i dont buy any of this

[man_of_mr_e]

Except that MS did not kill DOS, at least not for another 6 years after Windows 95. All those DOS apps ran fine in Windows 95.

People didn't want DOS apps, they wanted Windows apps, but Lotus, Ashton Tate, and Wordperfect sat back and said "Hey, let's see how this windows thing turns out before we do anything", meanwhile Microsoft had bet the farm on it.

And Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 was over 3 years.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Informed posts give me a woody. Thank you sir.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I was there (employee #2 at Personal Software), I will comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visi_On

and I quote from wikipedia

"Adding to the release's problems was Bill Gates, who took a page from VisiCorp's book and announced that their own product, Microsoft Windows, would be available in May 1984. This muddied the waters significantly, notably when he further claimed it would have a similar feature set, didn't require a hard disk, and cost only $250. Ironically, Windows was released with an even longer delay than VisiOn, only shipping in late 1985, and was lacking the features that forced Visi On to demand a hard drive."

Microsoft and VCs killed Personal Software/VisiCorp.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[Aphrika]

Rubbish.

You are aware that Microsoft released Office on the Mac in 1989 before the PC version aren't you? That Word was released as a standalone product for the original Macintosh in 1985? The the Microsoft Mac division exist as their own entity within the company?

Microsoft was 'actively supporting' Apple since day one.

The rest of your post and resulting diatribe appear to be based on incorrect facts.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[sincewhen]

Also, I believe the Mac version of Office (and the component products) is quite profitable in itself.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[UnknowingFool]

Yes Netscape did not enforce licensing and it was on the honor system that businesses paid; however, most honest businesses paid. Some of the more unscrupulous ones wouldn't pay for Windows much less Netscape. Most businesses, especially corporations, are risk averse when it comes to things like licensing.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[drinkypoo]

And they were trying to sell to Mac users on Word 5.1, which was, frankly, a really great Mac application. There, I've said it, but that was back when Microsoft wasn't a company you wanted to hate.

True and false. Word 5.1 was a great app, that's provably true. Actually, I've got a Mac SE with a Radius accelerator, some kind of System 6, and Word 5.1 near me now. It's my oldest computer. It still works perfectly after several other machines have died. And it wasn't always mine; it used to live in a University print shop. It's seen a lot of hours.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[UnknowingFool]

Except that MS did not kill DOS, at least not for another 6 years after Windows 95. All those DOS apps ran fine in Windows 95.

You seem to contradict yourself. WP was still DOS back then. If the other poster is correct and MS intentionally delayed WP's attempt to migrate to Windows 95 then MS is guilty of the dirty tricks that the anti-trust suit accused them of doing.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[Just Some Guy]

Microsoft is really good at making consumers want it's products, thus it gives people what they want, and people buy it. Let's look at your examples.

LOL. I can only think of one Microsoft product people actual want: an Xbox. Consumers don't want Windows; they want a computer (and Windows happens to come with it). They don't want Office, by and large; they want a word processor (and will use whatever comes with their computer 99% of the time). No one wanted Zunes. No one wants Windows phones. Even in the corporate arena, very few companies actually care about having Office so much as they care about being compatible with their customers, and Office is the most common means to that end.

No, I'd have to disagree completely: Microsoft is terrible at making consumers want its products. Outside its gaming division, people put up with their stuff, but almost no one actually wants it.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[bill_mcgonigle]

What about the 'false' part?

Re:i dont buy any of this

[Anonymous Coward]

The first commercial web browser? That was Spry. They sold a product called "Internet in a box", derived from NCSA Mosaic. This product existed and died before Microsoft even entered the market. So i have to wonder exactly how it was that Microsoft killed them.

I worked at Spry (the product you're referring to was AirMosaic. I still have "Internet in a Box" and "Internet in a Box For Kids!" on my desk should the world ever need a new copy of the Internet). Spry was little more than a company trying to sell ISP service for InterServ. CompuServe did a good job of killing it by buying up the company.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[jbengt]

Lotus I understand, and BeOS I never used, so I wouldn't know, but Wordperfect?
Wordperfect was for a long time the one of the best word processors as others came and went, and it worked well on probably a dozen different platforms. MS Word was horrible, and it worked only on MS Windows, and maybe Apple. Microsoft purposefully sabatoged Wordperfect on Windows - don't take my word for it, look up the trial transcripts.
Switching to a GUI was a step backwards for anyone familiar with Wordperfect at the time. The GUIs' only advantage then was WYSIWYG, and neither MS Word nor Wordperfect did that very well (understandable, considering the resolutions of screens and printers at the time). Even now MS Word sucks at WSIWYG, it does a terrible job of kerning and the layout shifts slightly every time you print to a different printer, sometimes enough to cause words to end up on different lines or lines to shift from on page to the next. Granted, Wordperfect has stagnated since then, and is no longer as good as it could be, but I use Word every day and I think it still sucks.
The breakup of MS just might have resulted in better application products capable of operating on multiple platforms.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[jbengt]

Spyglass was the next, and though they licensed the name Mosaic and technology from NCSA, they never used any of the code and wrote everything from scratch. It's true that Microsoft was the cause of their destruction, but it was because Microsoft out-developed them. They had 1000 Developers on the IE team, and spyglass had 20.

Your forgetting the part where Microsoft bought Spyglass source code for a fee plus a percentage of sales, but then, to head off Netscape, decided to give it away for free, declaring to Spyglass that a percentage of nothing is nothing. Spyglass sued and made $millions, but by no means did they recoup a realistic percentage of the value that Microsoft gained.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[elrous0]

Open source isn't even on MS's radar right now. Apple and Google are all they give a shit about right now. As far as they're concerned, the hippies and their thousand different Linux distros aren't even a pebble thrown at their armour plating. But Apple, Android, and ChromeOS--that's what keeps them up at night.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[man_of_mr_e]

Just because Spyglass did not get a "realistic" percentage of the value that MS gained doesn't mean this deal injured them. It simply didn't give them the benefit they wanted.

Spyglass got $10 million out of the deal in total, and they had 120 customers for their product. My guess is that this price was more than any of their other customers paid. Microsoft created a better "html rendering library" in IE and most of those customers moved to using IE's rendering engine instead of Spyglasses.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[man_of_mr_e]

VisiCalc was already dead, that article is talking about Visi On, a GUI not a spreadsheet.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[man_of_mr_e]

In those days, there wasn't a BSA or any real way for them to get in trouble. And Netscape did no enforcement. Yes, a Fortune 50 would want to make sure they were on the up and up with licensing costs, but it was far more common for software to be installed willy nilly than it is today. In fact, most corporations didn't have any way to make sure users didn't install such software on their systems themselves.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[man_of_mr_e]

I'm not contradicting anyone. I'm saying that the argument that Microsoft killed DOS and thus killed DOS apps is false. That isn't mutually exclusive with end users not wanting DOS apps anymore.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[man_of_mr_e]

People may not "specifically" want Windows or Office because they're Windows or Office. They want them because other OS's don't give them the ability to easily run the apps they want to run, or open the documents they want to open.

This is the same reason people choose an iPhone over an Android (or vice versa). Because it has the apps they want, or because they want what everyone else has.

Re:i dont buy any of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... Mitch Kapor (developer of Lotus 1-2-3) was at Personal Software when VisiOn was conceived. He left because he considered VisiOn "too much", and was starving resources for spreadsheet development. However, the idea was to productise Smalltalk, and bring a good environment to market. Apple had the same notion, but Microsoft was the company that saw a VisiOn demo, and turned around and pre-announced "Windows". Apple wasn't going to eat Microsoft in PC OS sales -- but VisiOn was going to. However, to achieve the Personal Software smackdown, Microsoft had to borrow from Apple.

I think we've found a happy place.

[pecosdave]

Apple is big. Arguably the biggest player right now, but it's arguable and that's a good thing.

Microsoft is the has been that isn't forgotten and still wields power.

The previous two are big enough to keep Google from really taking over, and is the only player that has truly embraced what the public wants (though minus the draconian parts Apple does a good job of that too).

Linux is huge, what the public really wants even though the masses aren't smart enough to realize it's what they want. They're happy as long as we spoon feed it to them with Android phones and in embedded devices they use and love while calling Linux that freaking weird hard to use thing their nephew likes.

The technology world is at a happy place. I don't know if smacking Microsoft down with the court system enabled this or not, really I can't guess how things would have worked out without the regulation they got. One of the few things mafia tactics worked on after the break up was making sure mobile music players, especially those in cars, didn't support OGG/Vorbis, but the only reason they succeeded was because Apple was the biggest player and was on the same page without actually having to conspire with Microsoft to do it. I'm certain other software companies were still bullied, but they did keep it on the down low, the PC vendor bullying was put into the spotlight, not fixed, but at least suppressed and lessened.

I think we're finally in a happy place were OS and hardware vendors are concerned.

Now we need to move on to communications companies, deregulation is good, but we need to deregulate enough to allow new competitors to breach the market and we have to stop the big players form bullying local co-ops and count/local level players from building networks where the big guys won't.

Re:I think we've found a happy place.

[tnk1]

Apple is big. Arguably the biggest player right now, but it's arguable and that's a good thing.

Microsoft is the has been that isn't forgotten and still wields power.

Now, there is a set of statements that would have caused a reader's head to explode if they had been written in 1998.

Re:I think we've found a happy place.

[pecosdave]

Funny how that door revolved.....

Re:I think we've found a happy place.

[VortexCortex]

Apple is big. Arguably the biggest player right now, but it's arguable and that's a good thing.

Microsoft is the has been that isn't forgotten and still wields power.

Now, there is a set of statements that would have caused a reader's head to explode if they had been written in 1998.

I'm not so sure... It seems he really has been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.

Re:I think we've found a happy place.

[pecosdave]

What you say, confused I am.

--Yoda

Re:I think we've found a happy place.

[Anonymous Coward]

The force is weak with this one!
-Lord Vader

Re:I think we've found a happy place.

[Kitkoan]

Not as simple as you seem to be implying. Thing is while Apple has gotten large, it is by no means a major player in Microsofts fields. Apple has gained it fortune in portable devices, while Microsoft gained its fortune from its OS on computers (and is still the biggest player there by far), and Microsoft also is the biggest player in the home console market. These are 2 different companies that aren't really competing in the same market. Sure they've tried to overlap into the others field but they would come out at either a loss or never made a major dent.

Re:I think we've found a happy place.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Now we need to move on to communications companies, deregulation is good, but we need to deregulate enough to allow new competitors to breach the market and we have to stop the big players form bullying local co-ops and count/local level players from building networks where the big guys won't.

The start and end of your phrase are contraditory.

Deregulation is like giving a guy a knife, opening a door to room with cute lion cubs and saying: "Good luck, you're on your own!"

Somehow I think the idea of waiting for the cubs to grow will never come up in the guy's head...

Re:I think we've found a happy place.

[pecosdave]

So deregulating by throwing open the doors and allowing competition and not caving to pressure put on by big companies to stomp new comers are mutually exclusive?

Re:I think we've found a happy place.

[drinkypoo]

Microsoft is the has been that isn't forgotten and still wields power.

If you look at the numbers out there in the really real world, Microsoft is still Goliath, and Apple is still Goliath Jr. And no matter how you slice it (I hope those links are reputable, they had pretty graphs that said what I wanted to see them say... h0h0h0) they are still leading jack and shit.

I've definitely perceived Microsoft slipping, but don't count them out yet. They still have some damage to do. The good news is that their operating systems don't really seem to be getting more technically competent, but Linux seems to actually keep improving; we could quibble about distributions but Gnome 2 is not going to disappear when your favorite distribution picks up Unity or Gnome 3. MacOS also seems to be improving fairly steadily. What's Microsoft's problem? And how can we encourage them to keep having it?

Re:I think we've found a happy place.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not so sure... It seems he really has been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.

Of course, Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Re:I think we've found a happy place.

[Magius_AR]

Not as simple as you seem to be implying. Thing is while Apple has gotten large, it is by no means a major player in Microsofts fields. Apple has gained it fortune in portable devices, while Microsoft gained its fortune from its OS on computers (and is still the biggest player there by far), and Microsoft also is the biggest player in the home console market. These are 2 different companies that aren't really competing in the same market. Sure they've tried to overlap into the others field but they would come out at either a loss or never made a major dent.

I believe Microsoft has made attempts to branch into the portable music market (Zune anyone?). How is bundling iTunes to block MS out of the market any different than what MS was doing to Apple back in the day? And iTunes is just the tip of the iceberg -- Apple prides itself on providing a complete system with a whole slew of feature-bloated apps (just watch the commercials where they continually mock MS for not providing said usability software). That's one of the largest reasons MacOS has made inroads against PC users. So Apple is allowed to use all its applications in combination with its OS whereas if MS tries it, it's considered bundling/anti-competitive? Now explain that, especially considering Apple's market cap these days.

Re:I think we've found a happy place.

[Kitkoan]

Well the Zune part was Microsofts attempt to enter into Apples portable devices market that didn't make a major dent (and for Apple OSX is their attempt to enter into Microsofts market and not making a major dent when after 10 years of heavy marketing and is still less then 1 in 10). This I mentioned at the end being that, yes, they've tried to overlap but didn't succeed.

As for Apple being able to bundle everything into its OS and being considered a great move by everyone but if Microsoft attempts even a fraction of it then its this horrible, evil anti-competitive move, I completely agree with you. I have nothing to explain against it because I completely agree with you. It is blant bias, and its a wonder that with Apple boasting that it has the major market of tablets that they aren't being remotely looked at for anti-competitive moves with their iTunes and App Market moves (like the whole iBooks incident). It just seems in the end, that with enough marketing anything seems to be a good thing when a company does it with flashy ads and comments that "We do it for you".

Skype Monopoly

[Doc Ruby]

Microsoft's dominance over the desktop, especially office desktops, still gives it too much monopoly power for Microsoft to compete fairly when combined with Skype's net phone dominance.

Re:Skype Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent up

Re:Skype Monopoly

[shutdown -p now]

Speaking of which, the Skype buyout still has to be approved by the feds...

Re:Skype Monopoly

[Archangel Michael]

Skype is just a product away from being worthless.

Android/Google are already poised to take over the market offered by Skype, with their Google Talk/Voice/Email/Cell Phone system they already have cobbled together. Microsoft has Skype and Windows (Phone 7), and maybe XBox Kinect (or whatever it is called).

At this point, if I were at Google, I'd lay it out exactly this way. "We need a unified voice/video/email/chat/sms/sip product. Now!" They have the pieces, they just need to tie it all together nice and pretty. If they did that, Skype would cease to exist in short order. Because Microsoft is not nimble enough.

Re:Skype Monopoly

[DigiShaman]

As a network admin, trying to get every OS to work together in one heterogeneous environment is a huge PITA with regards to both security and functionality. I say that because all devices end up meeting ends at the lowest common denominator to maintain cross-compatibility. A few example include, but not limited to...

1. MS Windows domain with file server.
2. Linux webserver and file server.
3. Plethora of droids needing Exchange e-mail access.
4. Blackberry's needing to tie back to Exchange for e-mail access.
5. Macbooks needing access to MS file server and Exchange. Problems occur depending on Mac OS and MS Office version.

Immediate issues are resolved by falling back to SMB by weakening security on MS file servers. But truth be told, a homogenous network would be far and away more secure and easier to manage. I would settle for a pure Linux, Microsoft, or Apple network. But getting all three platforms to work together can be an administrative nightmare. Regardless, heterogeneous are starting to become more popular by force. It's the future. Unfortunately, standardizations of the "Standards" are not enforced within the industry nor do they work well in place in the real world.

Re:Skype Monopoly

[DrgnDancer]

For that matter, Apple has a nice toy in Facetime. It needs some work and a few non-iDevice clients, but it could be a contender without breaking the bank (especially not Apple's bank). I could see them releasing Mac and Windows clients, though Linux and Android might be a bridge too far for them... So that could seriously cripple the whole deal. Apple's "control every aspect" fixation would be at war with the fact that social networks (and let's face it, that's basically what we're talking about here) become more valuable the more clients you have.

Re:Skype Monopoly

[bill_mcgonigle]

Speaking of which, the Skype buyout still has to be approved by the feds...

Is anybody going to explain to them that within five years Microsoft will only support Skype on Windows-branded OS's (other than the 3-year-old Mac version they barely keep on life support?)

Re:Skype Monopoly

[shutdown -p now]

I'm sure the EFF will submit a notice to that effect. There's no shortage of advocacy organizations promoting such views right now.

Re:Skype Monopoly

[bill_mcgonigle]

Immediate issues are resolved by falling back to SMB by weakening security on MS file servers.

Ah, there's your problem. Set up a Linux fileserver. Make the Windows boxes talk to Samba, the Macs talk to netatalk, and the Linux boxes can speak NFS directly.

Use the superset on the server side to handle the subsets on the client side - don't look for intersections of the subsets!

Re:Skype Monopoly

[DigiShaman]

Thanks for the suggestions.

My background is Windows simply because of the need for Active Directory. While the concept sounds dirty, is there a way to manage a Linux file server's permission delegation through an AD domain? I'd imagine I would have to join it to the domain masking it as a Windows box. I'd like to keep security administration centralized as much as possible.

Re:Skype Monopoly

[hedwards]

Which they likely will because it's passe to prevent mergers from going through. It would be less problematic if the DoJ would make companies stick to the promises they made in order to get regulatory approval for the transaction. It might happen, but in practice it doesn't seem to be very common.

Re:Skype Monopoly

[dch24]

Apple ... Facetime ... a few non-iDevice clients

hahahahahaha!

releasing Mac and Windows clients

hahahahahah!!!

I think you start to get it there, but let's face it: Apple will never release Facetime for Linux and Android. Windows? Now that's funny:

Which will come first? The death of Windows or Apple elevating it to a tier-1 supported platform for their communication software? hahahahaha! *snicker*

Re:Skype Monopoly

[dch24]

Briefly: yes.

It's actually a bit more complicated than it sounds, though: http://directory.fedoraproject.org/

Re:Skype Monopoly

[RightSaidFred99]

Skype monopoly? Holy fuck, that's stupid. Ever heard of SIP? You do know that Skype doesn't have a monopoly on anything other than Skype, right?

Re:Skype Monopoly

[RightSaidFred99]

Is anybody going to explain to you that you're free to use another product, considering there are hundreds of products similar to Skype available?

Re:Skype Monopoly

[Alex Belits]

Monopoly on users, not service.

At this point Skype's primary product is not service being sold to users (it is barely profitable or, more likely, unprofitable and would remain so until some serious monopolization), it's users being sold to Microsoft. Not unlike Myspace's primary product being in their users being sold to News Corp.(who mismanaged it horribly), Facebook's primary product being marketing data, and Google primary product being advertisement service.

Re:Skype Monopoly

[jimicus]

Someone else has already mentioned the fedora directory project, but you don't even need to go that far.

It's easy enough to get a Linux box to pick up user and group information from Active Directory. Once you've done that, you can set file ownership on files on the Linux box so they're owned by AD groups/users and Bob's your uncle.

That doesn't solve all your problems, however, because Linux applications seldom plug into the underlying authentication structure as neatly and seamlessly as Windows applications do. (I'm aware of PAM and how it works. I stand by my statement). The upshot is your box can be talking to AD just fine but the userland application that provides the actual service you want to use (eg. samba or a web app) can still show integration issues.

Re:Skype Monopoly

[Ash-Fox]

Is anybody going to explain to you that you're free to use another product, considering there are hundreds of products similar to Skype available?

I'm not aware of other products that do hole punching to get around NATs, numerous methods to mask their connections to prevent ISPs from throttling just Skype etc. which also has telephony support to do unlimited real world phone lines for very cheap subscriptions.

Note: I make use of video, audio, text messaging, screen sharing, free skype access on my mobile phone network via mobile phone.

But, since you say there are hundreds and I can't find any close to this on Google, surely you can suggest a few that similar to this product?

Re:Skype Monopoly

[DrgnDancer]

It wouldn't be the first time that Apple has held their collective noses and put a lot of effort into a piece of large scale Windows software for a strategic goal; I mean you can dislike iTunes for Windows all you like, it's probably the single most popular music player and manager on the platform. It's certainly a tier one development priority. They put the effort in becasue they wanted to sell iPods to Windows users. Whether they see the same level of usefulness in porting a communication software I can't say, but it's hardly laughable. For that matter, Safari for Windows is obviously a pretty high dev priority, despite not even being all that popular.

Re:Skype Monopoly

[drinkypoo]

Is anybody going to explain to them that within five years Microsoft will only support Skype on Windows-branded OS's (other than the 3-year-old Mac version they barely keep on life support?)

Don't tease me like that. What's actually going to happen is that they will change it to the extent that the old Linux versions don't work at all, they will maintain a shitty Mac version eternally, and they will continue to make clients for assorted mobile devices so that they have opportunities to continue to exist so they can listen in on your calls. You know, like Google Voice (which I use. but I wouldn't use it for anything nefarious, if I were so inclined.)

If they would knock it down to Windows only then it would die and then we could all move on to real SIP softphones.

Re:Skype Monopoly

[bill_mcgonigle]

Is anybody going to explain to you that you're free to use another product, considering there are hundreds of products similar to Skype available?

Nope, Skype owns essential echo cancellation patents. The Government will use violent force to ensure their monopoly on this aspect of VoIP software.

If it were a free market you'd be absolutely right. Too bad it's not.

Re:Skype Monopoly

[bill_mcgonigle]

they will continue to make clients for assorted mobile devices so that they have opportunities to continue to exist so they can listen in on your calls

See, I'm taking the approach that every Microsoft action now is intended to hurt Google. So, if they pull Skype from Android but keep upgrading it on WinCE, then they'll hurt Android and actually sell a few WinCE7 phones.

I think that's worth quite a bit more to them than any sort of voyeurism would allow. Or maybe you're right and the NSA is funding this so they can get a back door that eBay wouldn't allow.

Re:Skype Monopoly

[Doc Ruby]

Skype's market domination is the meaningful definition of "monopoly", as well as its echo cancellation patents that are literally monopolies.

Stop posting until you at least lose your unearned flaming conceit.

Re:Skype Monopoly

[RightSaidFred99]

Market domination is only related to "monopoly" in the minds of modern day Johnny Trustbusters. A real monopoly is where someone controls access to a limited resource, not "more people like the iPod even though there are 50 tablet alternatives available, therefor Apple has a monopoly!"

Second - Echo cancellation patents? You mean the ones that are aplenty? You don't seriously think Skype has jack shit in terms of patent power over echo cancellation, do you?

Re:Skype Monopoly

[RightSaidFred99]

Bullshit. Skype is a late-comer to echo cancellation, there are tons of implementations available. What next, did fucking Apple invent the touch interface in this alternate universe you inhabit?

Re:Skype Monopoly

[bill_mcgonigle]

Bullshit. Skype is a late-comer to echo cancellation, there are tons of implementations available

Can you recommend one that works well with a laptop's speakers and microphone? I haven't found any.

BFD

[Anonymous Coward]

Emphasis mine.

Ambiguous

[khr]

Did tech innovation suffer over the last 10 years because Microsoft wasn't broken up? 'Not really,' said Vinton Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist, 'It has to do with the fact that open source has become such a strong force in the software world.'"

I find that actually ambiguous... Is Vinton Cerf saying that tech innovation suffered because of open source instead of because Microsoft wasn't broken up? I'm sure that's not what he meant....

Re:Ambiguous

[Samantha Wright]

ComputerWorld may not be stating that Vinton Cerf (leader of the project to design TCP, Internet god of one of the world's largest open source companies, and staunch defender of net neutrality) said that open source makes tech innovation suffer, but they sure are insinuating it.

Kind of like how Old Spice insinuates that their products will make you smell like a millionaire jet fighter pilot, but don't actually say so. They do, however, state that they're insinuating it—which, all things considered, is more honest than ComputerWorld.

What exactly is the world coming to, anyway?

Re:Ambiguous

[Archangel Michael]

I'm on a horse

Controversial issue

[gad_zuki!]

I find it interesting that because of the ruling MS could no longer dictate that OEMs not put any crapware and couldnt force its own free AV onto them. So end users now get these machines with a fairly decent version of windows, but bogged down in crapware and with multiple AV products screaming for subscriptions which most people ignore.

I'd rather the court just break them up into OS, office, and enterprise software solutions than this kind of odd hand-holding that in the end didn't do much good.

Open Source was going to take over the horrible overly expensive commercial unix market regardless. Apple would still be around and even kept alive by MS to avoid regulators, etc.

Outside of the Netscape issue, I dont think this was justified. I'd rather the court better handle this as its own issue. I'd also would rather have legislation in place that controls whether a large corporation can produce free/bundled software against a small competitor on a case by case basis. We already have undercutting and dumping laws for other industries.

I honestly think that even without this ruling Firefox, Linux, and Apple would have done just as well. The lack of a breakup really just turned this into a useless compromise. Shame the government had the balls to take them to court, but not to actually win anything.

Re:Controversial issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because Linux is so much more successful on the desktop than it was 10 years ago. After all that's what this lawsuit really boiled down to: end users and the desktop.

Re:Controversial issue

[Alex Belits]

I can assure you, if that comment had anything to do with Communism, I would recognize it there -- and I don't.

Re:Controversial issue

[gad_zuki!]

Unless the government points a gun to my fucking head, I'm not using linux as a desktop and I say this as a big linux server guy. Look, you can blame conspiracy theories all you like, but in the end the product is poor. Look at the clusterfuck that is Unity on Ubuntu or the mess of issues that typify linux desktop. No thanks.

Overheard recently at the DOJ

[PPH]

Release the Kraken!

Facist Media

[hackus]

When you can produce an article, that is so bizarre, that nobody really understands reality that portends to offer a objective opinion in this way, it signals the end of a society.

Maybe in this case the fascist empire we call USA.

First of all, Google is in many ways worse than Microsoft. Yet the question is asked if Google thinks monopolies are bad things.

Pinch me if this isn't 1984 or 2010? WT? is it and what is the difference?

-Hack

Re:Facist Media

[Anonymous Coward]

Pinch me if this isn't 1984 or 2010? WT? is it and what is the difference?

*pinches hackus*
It's 2011...

Re:Facist Media

[drinkypoo]

Here, maybe this will help

1984
2010

I figure your problem is if it wasn't a movie you haven't heard of it, right? Kids these days

If only they had broken it up!

[davevr]

Then only one company (at most) would have had Balmer as a CEO....

- a Microsoft shareholder


PS: and none of the mini-microsofts would have paid 8 BILLION for F'ing Skype!

Re:If only they had broken it up!

[hedwards]

Honestly, I think it was a good move for them, which is why I'm opposed to the acquisition. I just see this as way too easy for them to abuse to make it a head ache for folks that want to run other OSes.

Re:If only they had broken it up!

[Alex Belits]

I am sure, they have sufficient supply of ill-tempered, incompetent fat people for all your executive hiring needs.

Re:If only they had broken it up!

[adtifyj]

Then only one company (at most) would have had Balmer as a CEO....

- a Microsoft shareholder

PS: and none of the mini-microsofts would have paid 8 BILLION for F'ing Skype!

It is comforting to know that even microsoft shareholders can see Microsoft is paying a lot of money to fuck Skype.

In other news ...

[PPH]

... Google staff evangelist speaks out against strict DOJ antitrust enforcement emphasis.

So I assume Firefox won't work with next patch?

[CrazyJim1]

I still remember the day when Microsoft updated one of their Windows versions(I think Win98?) and Netscape would not run because they removed a .dll.
Also Embrace, Extend, Extinguish was put on cool down for 10 years. That stuff got really old. Why try to make something useful when Microsoft would just catch wind of it and redo it?

I have no problem with OS bundling though. I bet people have some nice bundles of software ready with Linux. Once multiplatform aps become the rule instead of exception, people won't have a real reason to stick with M$ unless M$ really invests in new technologies. I'd like them to take what they got with Kinect and apply it for all known objects in the world, maybe be the people who solve robotic vision, and let us have robots that can interact in the world safely.

Re:So I assume Firefox won't work with next patch?

[man_of_mr_e]

You still remember that day huh? That's interesting, because it never happened. No google results. Nothing in the conspiracy theory archives. Strange that.

More than likely, you're conflating multiple different events and mixing them up and putting a netscape tag on it. Certainly, updates to Windows have broken apps, but never because they removed a dll. Most apps break when a new OS is released because the apps were relying on some undocumented functionality that changes in an update. It happens on Macs, it happens on Linux, and it happens on Windows.

Microsoft goes out of their way to make broken apps work in Windows, even competitors. Microsoft actually had to put bugs back in the OS to make various apps function properly on some versions of Windows. On Windows 9x systems, there was a file that contained "hack bits" that were used to enable certain processes to turn on compatibility features for them, so they wouldn't break.

Re:So I assume Firefox won't work with next patch?

[germansausage]

He must be thinking of "Dos ain't done till Lotus won't run" - Also not true.

Re:So I assume Firefox won't work with next patch?

[Anonymous Coward]

DR DOS.
Do your homework.
Learn your history.

Re:So I assume Firefox won't work with next patch?

[man_of_mr_e]

Perhaps you should learn your history. You're talking about the AARD code, which was never enabled in a shipping version of Windows. And, there were legetimate bugs in DR DOS that novell acknowledge that made it buggy to run Windows on it.

http://fringe.davesource.com/Fringe/NonZen_Companies/Microsoft/Tactics/1993.09.01.Locks_Out_DrDOS.html

"So whenever I've heard accusations that Microsoft practices so-called "cruel coding" to keep Windows from running on DR DOS, I look at the facts: Windows 3.1 Enhanced mode does run on DR DOS. Standard mode does not run, but that's because of a DR DOS bug acknowledged by Novell (see Undocumented DOS, Second Edition)."

"Consequently, if you didn't know how the error message in Figure 1 was generated, it's reasonable to think that it's the manifestation of yet another bug in Novell DOS. (It wouldn't be the first time company N's bug has been misinterpreted as company M's "deliberate incompatibility.")"

But, in the end, the point is that when Microsoft shipped Windows 3.1, it did so without the AARD code enabled.

Re:So I assume Firefox won't work with next patch?

[yuhong]

It isn't just AARD. Try running for example the PWB shipped with MS C 6.0 under NTVDM.

You got to be kidding me!

[Plekto]

'It has to do with the fact that open source has become such a strong force in the software world.'"

I wouldn't call less than 2% of the PC market "a strong force". The guy's been smoking too much of his own press releases if he doesn't realize that even with the antitrust oversight (such as it was) Microsoft plainly won the war.

Re:You got to be kidding me!

[RobbieThe1st]

2% of the /desktop/ market perhaps(probably more like 5% actually), but more like 50%+ of the server market(especially web servers), and at least 50% of the smartphone market(thanks to Android), 80% of the home router, webTV, etc market...
How many smartphones run WP7 vs Android? Not many.
How many routers run Win CE or something? None?
Etc.

Don't claim windows won the war when all they have is a tenative grip on the Desktop x86 PC market instead.

Not so fast Google guy

[krizoitz]

Yup, Open Source is the reason things changed.
Like how Linux became such a strong force in the desktop OS market. Um, wait, let me try that again.
Like how Google's open source search engine revolutionized the way we find things on the web. Nope, that one didn't happen either.
Like how Apple's open source iPhone reinvented mobile phones. Hmm, I'm starting to see a pattern here.
Like how Adope's open source Flash platform brought video and interactive content to the internet. Damn, I know I'll get one.
Like how open source Mp3 technology revolutionized digital music. Fine, I give up.

Look there have obviously been open source projects over the last decade that have had an impact. Linux on the server side (especially coupled with Apache, MySQL, and PHP) for example. But commerical server offerings are still a major part of that landscape. And Android has had strong success in mobile, but before the iPhone changed the landscape it was just a Blackberry look alike. Windows (and too a lesser extent OS X) are still what most people use for their daily computing needs, and frankly it wasn't the open source that led the way on new tablets. Open source has contributed, and its a good thing to have around. WebKit and Mozilla/Firefox on the browser side are the biggest factors in re-igniting the web and HTML 5 looks to do away with the decrepit old Flash hopefully sooner rather than later. But Open Source was NOT the driving force behind inovation the past decade, sorry but it just wasn't.

Re:Not so fast Google guy

[c0lo]

Yup, Open Source is the reason things changed.
...
But Open Source was NOT the driving force behind inovation the past decade, sorry but it just wasn't.

Nicely constructed, but still just a strawman. Let's get back to the source:

'Not really,' said Vinton Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist, 'It has to do with the fact that open source has become such a strong force in the software world.'"

Now, tell me where it does say open source was the driving force of inovation?

Because I can imagine that even if your competitor doesn't invent, it's very presence may drive you to innovate.
How else can you stay relevant if your competitor creates a "clone" (not a "pirated copy" but a replica of the functionality) of what you are offering?
Moreover, how can you stay in business if the work of your competitor is totally open and enables other of your competitors to invent at a lower cost (e.g. Google/Android. OpenBSD/MacOS.)?

Re:Not so fast Google guy

[Casandro]

It's amazing how you see tiny little steps as revolutions. The iPhone was just another mobile phone which still pales in comparison to the open source alternatives. It's just that Apple has a massive marketing machine. Nobody would have believed that one could make a working smartphone if it hadn't been for Maemo and the Sharp Zaurus.

Interactive content is _far_ older than Flash. It's one of the things HTML and CGI was designed for.

MP3 just sped things up by a year or so. Besides if the format wouldn't have been open (as in documented) it would have failed immediately. Just look at Realaudio. If it hadn't been for MP3, we'd probably be sharing ADPCM files twice the size or maybe Musicam (MP2) at nearly the same efficiency.

On the other hand, all the basic technology for the internet, like E-Mail, the Web etc was all open sourced from the start. There have been many closed alternatives called Compuserve, AOL, MSN (the old one) or Datex-J. They all died out or are now internet portals.

Re:Not so fast Google guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Siure it was,it was what those closed source winners had to do better than.

Re:Not so fast Google guy

[krizoitz]

How exactly does the iPhone pale in comparison to open source alternatives? Aside from supporting Flash and letting you side load apps, what fundementally superior ability does Android have compared to iPhone? They are comparable platforms, with different strengths and weaknesses but not all that different. However if you go back and look at what Android looked like BEFORE Apple introduced the iPhone, its clear that Apple was the one pushing the boundaries in the phone world. No they didn't invent all the various pieces, but they put them together in a way that hadn't been done before and COMPLETELY altered the mobile landscape. Anyone who disregards the impact Apple had on the smartphone world, whether or not you prefer their product or Google's, is delusional.

Re:Not so fast Google guy

[krizoitz]

There was an open source smartphone that dominated the market before Apple's iPhone? There was an open source search engine that dominated the web before Google? There was an open source digital music format that was widely used before Mp3? No, just no. Open source has played a part, but it hasn't been the driving force.

we'll never know

[Locutus]

we'll never know because the companies not created because of fear of entering the market because of Microsoft's power over the PC market can't be asked. And yes there is fear within the PC desktop, laptop, server market surrounding Microsoft. It was only a few years ago when the head of the Taiwanese Manufacturing Association stated publicly that the association members fear Microsoft on the netbook and PC hardware but not on the phone device side. There are probably thousands of companies who would not enter the PC software market just because their product might compete with a Microsoft based product and they might 'get Netscaped'.

so we'll never know. What I think we do know is that Nokia would not be turned into a Windows shop and Skype would not become a Windows company.

LoB

Thank the Bush Administration

[Nimey]

At the tail end of the Clinton's term, it looked like Judge Jackson was going to split MS up into two or three companies, and we wouldn't have to worry about them for a decade or two until they re-combined like Ma Bell did.

Then Chimpy gets into office and promptly pulls all the experienced lawyers off the case, and suddenly MS gets a slap on the wrist for their trouble. Because anti-trust law is part of the liberal job-killing agenda, you see.

Wrong Question

[vga_init]

The question isn't whether or not tech innovation suffered, but whether or not the software market has suffered. Indeed, I would say the software market has suffered immensely, and the only reason why we can say "tech innovation" continued is because, as Vinny points out, the success of open source. Open source worked because it functioned outside the market, so it was impervious to Microsoft's monopoly.

Re:Wrong Question

[man_of_mr_e]

Are you seriously trying to say that Open Source innovates anything? Like what? I can't think of a single technology that Open Source has done first and been copied by commercial versions, but I can think of tons of cases of the reverse.

Can you think of any?

Re:Wrong Question

[bitMonster]

You're an MS troll.

Re:Wrong Question

[dch24]

This is tired old FUD that you Microsoft shills trot out all the time.

Can you name one technology that Microsoft innovated? And by the way, it doesn't count if they bought it from someone else.

Ok, now to your original question:
1. Alchemy
2. Bespin
3. Bitcoin
4. eyeOS
5. KDE Social Desktop
6. Ksplice
7. Unity
8. HTTP, the Web, TCP/IP, and ARPAnet
9. X Windows
10. Perl
11. Slashdot
12. Google keeps playing with open source, but can't make up their minds. Here are some
13. Microsoft plays with open source, here are some. This must just eat you up. Too bad, Open Source is everywhere.
14. Here are some more innovative open source projects.

Now, I expect you to provide at least 5 innovative projects Microsoft created within the last 10 years. (Sorry, you can't count Windows or Office, since those ideas are much older, and are no longer considered innovative.)

Failing that, at least read what I wrote.

Re:Wrong Question

[man_of_mr_e]

Wow. You completely missed the point. Hint: Individual products are not technologies. Just because some product plugs two existing technologies together doesn't make it innovative.

And using government funded technologies like TCP/IP and ARPAnet is just dishonest.

And, company donated open source is not the same thing as an open source project that is born that way, and grows by community. companies donate to open source for various reasons, but they aren't open source developed projects. They're proprietary projects that are donated to open source.

As for your "more" projects. Really? LLVM? a set of compiler tools that are in themselves not particularly innovative? a CMS that was itself a fork of another CMS? A video player that does nothing new or unique that hasn't been done by others for decades? and a project that hacks proprietary hardware? Wow, the bottom of the dregs there.

I'm talking about real innovation here. Stuff like 3D Compositing UI's. No, Open source did not invent that. Apple did, years before the first version of XGL hit the wires. In fact, Microsoft was one of the first to provide the basic technologies used for compositing UI's with Windows GDI+ released with Windows 2000. Apple took it to the next level with Quartz. Microsoft was showing Wobbly windows demonstrations of the early longhorn alphas in 2002, 4 years before Linux got XGL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compositing_window_manager

Now THAT is innovation, and open source was nowhere to be found until years later. THAT is something that is a fundamental change in the way we use computers. Nearly every major jump in software technology has come from either government or endowment funding, or commercial funding. The key there is "funding", something traditional open source projects just don't have.

Now how about something like A

Re:Wrong Question

[man_of_mr_e]

Government funded. Secret for years before being released.

Re:Wrong Question

[dch24]

Individual products ARE technologies, unless you're ready to dismiss Kinect.

And government funded technologies like NASA aren't innovation? C'mon, enough with the ad hominems.

You may not think LLVM, VLC, or Joomla are innovative. That doesn't mean they aren't.

You might want to finish your rants before hitting submit: "Now how about something like A ..." ???

Re:Wrong Question

[NotSanguine]

Are you seriously trying to say that Open Source innovates anything? Like what? I can't think of a single technology that Open Source has done first and been copied by commercial versions, but I can think of tons of cases of the reverse.

Can you think of any?

Hmmm, let's see:

Kerberos, LDAP, TCP/IP, Wiki and many, many others.

Note that the first two are, in fact, pretty much the apex of MS' accomplishments in security and management environments.

Nobody pays any attention to history, even though some of the decisions made over the pas five thousand years ago still have a marked impact on our lives, yet people ignore what happened ten or fifteen years ago....sigh

Re:Wrong Question

[man_of_mr_e]

Kinect is both a technology and a product. There is the Kinect product, and the technology it's based on. Kinect isn't the inovation, the technology it uses is. Kinect is just a game controller, its technology is what makes it special.

Re:Wrong Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You completely missed the point. Hint: Individual products are not technologies. Just because some product plugs two existing technologies together doesn't make it innovative.

And using government funded technologies like TCP/IP and ARPAnet is just dishonest.

And, company donated open source is not the same thing as an open source project that is born that way, and grows by community. companies donate to open source for various reasons, but they aren't open source developed projects. They're proprietary projects that are donated to open source.

As for your "more" projects. Really? LLVM? a set of compiler tools that are in themselves not particularly innovative? a CMS that was itself a fork of another CMS? A video player that does nothing new or unique that hasn't been done by others for decades? and a project that hacks proprietary hardware? Wow, the bottom of the dregs there.

I'm talking about real innovation here. Stuff like 3D Compositing UI's. No, Open source did not invent that. Apple did, years before the first version of XGL hit the wires. In fact, Microsoft was one of the first to provide the basic technologies used for compositing UI's with Windows GDI+ released with Windows 2000. Apple took it to the next level with Quartz. Microsoft was showing Wobbly windows demonstrations of the early longhorn alphas in 2002, 4 years before Linux got XGL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compositing_window_manager

Now THAT is innovation, and open source was nowhere to be found until years later. THAT is something that is a fundamental change in the way we use computers. Nearly every major jump in software technology has come from either government or endowment funding, or commercial funding. The key there is "funding", something traditional open source projects just don't have.

Now how about something like A

Individual Products are technologies. Plugging two existing technologies together does make it innovative.

For example, take two simple machines: The lever and the wheel and axel. Put two levers together, with the pivot point of one lever being at one end of the shorter lever, and the pivot point of the shorter lever being at r - .25 on the wheel of the wheel and axel. Now you've got the basic setup for a piston. The piston is a new technology.

Also, a better mousetrap is a fork of a mousetrap, and that better mousetrap is innovation.

The same is true for software. If you combine two technologies and result in something that hasn't been done before, you have innovated.

  You are misunderstanding the definition of "Open Source Software" as well. Open Source Software is software where the source code is open and free to modify. Just because a project was government funded doesn't mean it is not open source now. Most of the software in the world is built on C or C interpreters. The libraries for the C compiler are open source.

A lot of open source projects are directly funded at first, but then community developed in the end. Just because a project is "funded" doesn't make it not open-source.

The reason open source software drives further innovation is that more people are able to look at more code and understand new ways to use the concepts represented by that code to create new software. Closed source projects are black boxes that attempt to hide their internal innovations to keep others from learning how they work.

Re:Wrong Question

[man_of_mr_e]

So you're really trying to say that Java is an innovative open source project? Despite the fact that Java was entirely developed by a corporation and then donated under the GPL? That's just being dishonest. Java was a proprietary technology that is now open source (or at least parts of it).

What i'm saying is that there is a difference between technology developed by a company like Red Hat, which is an open source company, and Sun which was not, or Oracle today.

Let's take OpenOffice, for instance. OpenOffice is an open source project, but it's a project that is almost entirely run by corporate mandate. They take few patches from the community. Almost all work is done by paid developers, and it is based on a proprietary product that was made open source. That's mostly why the source code for OpenOffice sucks so bad. Because it hasn't had any real community involvement for most of its life.

LibreOffice, on the other hand is doing a lot of new stuff and is letting the community help. Things that LibreOffice are doing to the source may be considered a real open source project. When I refer to an open source project, I'm referring to the Bazaar form of development, not the Cathedral form (which OpenOffice and many other so called open source projects are).

Maybe you can explain what you consider "innovative" about a project like Joomla. What "technology" does Joomla represent? It's a CMS that does pretty much what dozens of other CMS's do. And most of it's functionality does what thousands of other CMS's do.

What's innovative about VLC?

Re:Wrong Question

[bitMonster]

Typical argument by definition. You guys are ships passing in the night.

Yeah, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is huge, what the public really wants even though the masses aren't smart enough to realize it's what they want.

It's amazing how the general public embraces this sort of arrogant twatwash from the likes of Steve Jobs, but not from frothing Linux lunatics.

Oh, wait. That's because Steve Jobs, despite his arrogance, still manages to give the public what it needs. And no, that isn't a crap desktop experience.

Re:Yeah, no.

[pecosdave]

I have a Mac, I got a crap desktop experience, there's a lot of stupid "because Steve Jobs said so" barriers on a mac if you're a geek, and I don't like them. So yes, you could say Steve Jobs gave me that.

I'm not saying I haven't gotten a crap desktop experience on Linux before, but at least I can often fix those issues (not always) and there's usually a modular work around.

I would say both camps have frothing lunatics, go anyplace hipsters gather and tell them how underpowered for the price a Mac is and how much better Windows seven is in comparison and see what happens.

+1 Insightful if I had points left.

[SilasMortimer]

Hey, if someone's completely anti-corporation, I can totally dig that to a degree. I'll probably agree with some of their points. But if there are valid points, they don't need to make up any.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

They won't do that

[Casandro]

Shipping a "working" "Security" Suite would mean that companies like Norton and Symantec would get pissed off. Those companies currently are the ones which go on TV-shows and try to convince investors that Microsoft will manage to do security, and that it's just as bad on other plattforms.

Examples

[Casandro]

There are some obvious examples where Microsoft has hindered technological progress. Of course one can only speculate.

One example are alternative CPU platforms. There are no ARM-PCs, because Windows doesn't support it.

The slow take on of IPv6 is probably also Microsoft's fault. If they wouldn't have designed their Windows 2000/XP line of operating systems so insecurely, people wouldn't have NA(P)T today and instead would have gone for IPv6 a lot earlier. The same is valid for proper network support. If Windows would have supported basic features like remote-logins, the whole "Cloud" business would have been a lot different. Why trust in a cloud for private data when you can just log into your home PC?

Re:Examples

[sensationull]

You're full of it on the IP6 front, the Windows implementation of IP6 is actually one of the better ones, much better than OSX or at least it was a while ago when tested. IP6 i also supported in XP and is a case of a couple of clicks or I beleive a single command line to enable it. Half the new tech that MS is pushing has heavy reliance on IP6 like DirectAccess and Vista/7 have it enabled by default. Apart from the exception of ISA/TMG MS actually seems to be pushing as hard as any vendor for IP6 including supporting it on products made so long ago that Apple has been through three architectures since.

Re:Examples

[RadiantPhoenix]

Windows, or at least windows 7, does not have 'one of the better' ipv6 implementations. In fact, I would say it has one of the worst, given that it can be crashed just by telling it there are a bunch of routers nearby

Huge impact on MS and Silicon Valley

[billstewart]

Perhaps you young folks don't remember the late 90s (:-), but the primary business models for Silicon Valley startups in those days were to make something popular and

• Maybe IPO, or
• Sell your company to Cisco if you made hardware, or
• Sell your company to Microsoft if it was software or services.

Microsoft's bought Hotmail for $400M, and it transformed the previously IPO-centric business focus.

The Anti-Trust suit meant you could no longer sell your company to Microsoft, so it was much harder to get venture capital, because VCs wanted to build and sell companies, not try to actually run them and have to deliver profits selling dogfood online. It didn't help that Alan Greenspan raised interest rates six times in early 2000, making capital harder to get, and the Y2K Disaster Prevention Retrofitting business was over, and the market itself was starting to get more realistic about what internet advertising was worth (enough to support free web hosting and search, not enough to support physical delivery of dogfood.*) Al Gore the Senator may have invented the Internet, but Al Gore the Vice President anti-trust activist helped crash the dot-com boom.

* There was one of the Webvan competitors that was making money, not for its investors, but at least for its drivers, but that was only because they weren't just delivering munchies late at night, they were also delivering weed.

Re:Huge impact on MS and Silicon Valley

[drinkypoo]

Al Gore the Senator may have invented the Internet, but Al Gore the Vice President anti-trust activist helped crash the dot-com boom.

You could try "...helped pop the dot-com bubble" which would be a lot more accurate.

No Linux is not what the public wants

[Sycraft-fu]

The public wants devices that are easy to use, does what they want, and they don't give two shits what they run. They want things easy to use and friendly.

That is why Android is seeing success and Linux on the desktop is not. Android is easy because Google took the Linux kernel and on that developed a good UI and put standards in to place. Users buy a device that is easy to use and it runs all the apps they'd like.

On the desktop Linux is a disaster. There are tons of distros, all with various differences (sometimes major), there are competing standards for just about everything, and you lack a lot of the apps people want.

Really, normal users are pragmatic about computers. A computer is a tool to them, like a hammer, a microwave, and so on. They have various tasks they want it to do, and they want it to be easy to do those tasks. That is their criteria. Linux on the desktop fails badly at that criteria for almost all users ("just recompile the kernel" is NEVER an acceptable solution for a non-technical user) but succeeds on Android. Hence, normal people use android but not Linux desktops.

Re:www.happyshopping100.com

[Alex Belits]

Non-Microsoft shills? In my Microsoft-shill-infested thread?

It's more likely than you think.

Have another one...

[Anonymous Coward]

and rage on! These threads are like heroin for the MS-rage addicts.

Re:Have another one...

[Alex Belits]

Actually I am pretty content with Microsoft shills being so obvious. It's ones that write long seemingly pro-Linux comments then squirt some idiotic crap at the end, that I consider dangerous.

Not true about Word Perfect

[dhammabum]

Your point about Word Perfect is false and misleading. Word Perfect died because Microsoft targeted it. MS viewed Word Perfect as a big threat and abused their monopoly position to end that threat. They purposefully changed specifications and withdrew APIs in Windows 95 a month before it was due to be released. Word Perfect/Novell had to recode much of the program, hence it was late and bug ridden. All this came out in the Comes vs MS trial and is about to resurface if Novell continues their case against MS. Before you say prove it, read for yourself:

http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2007021720190018

I note your plugging a Microsoft shop in your sig - aren't astroturfers normally less obvious?

Re:Not true about Word Perfect

[man_of_mr_e]

I'm talking about Windows 3.1, not Windows 95. Try 5 years earlier. Before Novell bought Wordperfect.

Also, no. Microsoft did NOT withdraw any API's from Windows 95 a month before it shipped. Windows 95 was RTM'd on July 11, 1995 and shipped August 25th 2005. That means it was finalized 6 weeks before it shipped. What's more, Windows 95 was basically static since December 2004, and went through extensive beta testing with only minor bug fixes and no feature changes.

That's simply not true. I'd thank you to point to an actual document, not the entire archive of comes v microsoft to support your claim.

I know what you're referring to, though. Items 75, 76, and 77 of Novell's complaint. However, the complaint contradicts itself in numerous places. For instance, it claims "In public test versions of Windows 95 released a few months before the final product shipped to consumers, ripped out these programming interfaces without warning to Novell." Ok, a few months not "a month", but let's look further.

"Thereafter, when Microsoft released Windows 95 and Office 95, at virtually the same time, Microsoft suddenly reversed course and documented the programming interfaces. Doing so voided the alternatives that Microsoft previously forced Novell to expend an entire year developing and, at the precise moment when WordPerfect needed to enter the market, forced Novell to spend additional time designing basic functions of WordPerfect all over again."

Uhh.. ok. So where exactly does the "year of development" come from? First Novell claims that "a few months" before the release, microsoft withdrew the API's, then when the release actually happened they claim Microsot then again documented them. At most, this could be, by definition, "a few months" and not a whole years worht of development, other wise Novell would have had to have started their development a year before the release of Windows 95 in order for their "years worth of work" to be voided when Windows 95 and Office 95 were released at the same time, and the API's documented.

Then there's the point that if Microsoft simply withdrew the API's and then redocumented them, all the work they had done previous should have still be valid. They didn't just "throw away the code", it was still there. If the API's suddenly start working again, their previous code would have started working again.

It all makes no sense, and is contradictory. The only conclusion one can come to is that Novell was making crap up, and they lost track of their lies. These are Novell's own words.

Then there is the claim that Novell made that they had to redesign their program because Windows 95 wasn't a pure 32 bit OS, and made the claim that 16 bit applications would not run correctly on a 32 bit OS (complete BS). This is of course a lie, because 16 bit code worked just fine, even on NT which WAS a pure 32 bit system. It's such a ridiculous claim that its laughable.

Oh, here's another fun one "Microsoft refused to publish the APIs that were used to place items on the Windows Clipboard, although its own developers had the documentation. The Clipboard provided a location for storing information until it was "pasted" into another application. Novell ultimately had to forgo this functionality in its applications because the expenditure of time and resources required to duplicate the hidden APIs was prohibitive, so Novell could not provide the same richness of data integration that Microsoft's applications could provide."

The clipboard functions were documented in 1992 When microsoft published the Win32 API for Windows NT. It was in book form, from publishers. Not beta information. The clipboard api did not change in Windows 95 in any way. Wow.

Here's another good one "Further, Microsoft unilaterally announced that OLE would be incorporated directly into Windows, instead of existing independently of the operating system as a technology to be adopted or rejected by ISVs, depending on their assessments of its technical merit."

Re:Not true about Word Perfect

[Rockoon]

However, the complaint contradicts itself in numerous places.

To be fair, it would be very difficult to find a lawsuit doesnt contradict itself. Certainly the idea is to throw everything at the wall and then to see what sticks.

Rear-ending someone results in the standard lawsuit claims where you were (A) driving too fast, (B) distracted, (C) failed to maintain the vehicles breaks, (D) followed too closely, (E) failed to turn, (F) failed to sound your horn, ..........

If you prove that you did sound your horn and maintained your vehicle, that doesnt negate the lawsuit because they only need one claim to be found "true", which is why lawsuits make so many claims.

Re:Not true about Word Perfect

[man_of_mr_e]

Which means, you can't take anything from a complaint as fact, because the lawyers make any claim they can think of, whether they know it to be true or not in the hopes they might pull one over on the judge or jury.

Re:Not true about Word Perfect

[dhammabum]

Nice strawman you created. No, I was primarily referring to the Microsoft emails and document exhibits in the Comes vs Microsoft trial. Here's a quote from Mr Gates himself (exhibit 2151):

"I have decided that we should not publish these extensions. We should wait until we have a way to do a high level of integration that will be harder for the likes of Notes, Wordperfect to achieve, and which will give Office a real advantage. This means that Capone and Marvel can still live in the top level of the Explorer namespace, but will run separately. We can continue to use the iShellBrowser APIs for MS provided views such as control panel, and can use them for other MS-provided views that don't create a large compatibility or ISV issue."

While telling Novell (Gates' letter to Novell's Frankenburg in 1995 - http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/NovvMS-104-21.pdf):

"In fact, Microsoft goes out of its way to make early copies of API and protocol specifications available, hold design reviews (that even our competitors attend), and run the largest beta test programs in the industry. Novell has been invited to participate in many of these "Open Process" events -- and all without requiring a tit-for-tat arrangement."

Unfortunately, Novell's claims and these exhibits have not been tested in court. And now with Attachmate in control, I can see a confidential settlement happening. But we can see Microsoft's unpalatable tactics in these exhibits for ourselves, and while Gates poo-poos Novell's anti-trust concerns in the above letter, they were vindicated by the federal monopoly abuse conviction, the adverse settlement with Caldera for Microsoft's anti-competitive behaviour with DR-DOS, and with the adverse browser ruling from the EU.

As we saw with the ISO OOXML "Standard" farce, the patent suit against TomTom and now another against Barnes and Noble, Microsoft certainly hasn't changed its ways. I just hope they shrink from the scene sooner than later.

Re:Not true about Word Perfect

[man_of_mr_e]

If you read the actual full email from Gates, it says something very different from what you're trying to imply. Gates is specifically saying that Office and other apps can't use the API's. He's saying that the API's shouldn't be published, and that Capone and Marvel can't use them either, in effect saying that MS apps should not get special treatment.

The email has to be read as a whole, not just a few choice snippets that take it out of context. For instance, this part was conveniently left out:

"It is hard to know how much actual market benefit IShellBrowser integration would bring. I believe Chicago will be very successful either way. Unfortunately I don't think the integration will have amarked effect in terms of Capone competing with cc:Mail, so that battle will have to be won on other grounds" (this is saying that he doesn't think allowing Capone (Basically what became Microsoft Exchange) to have special access to the explorer API's would be of any benefit. And he's saying that they will have to compete in other ways, and not via shell integration.

If you read the entire email, it gives a very different picture, although you have to have some context of understanding what they're talking about. They're deciding whether or not the API's should be published, and some are arguing that Capone and Marvel should be considered part of the OS itself, and have special access. Meanwhile, Gates and Silverberg (the guy running the Windows team at the time) said no, they can't be considered to have special access. From the PDF file:

Brad Silverberg: "There is no one in the world outside of Microsoft who will buy the argument that they [Capone and Marvel] are "part of chicago" so get the interfaces while others don't. This an impossible sale".

Re:Not true about Word Perfect

[dhammabum]

Of course I read the whole thing. For those of you who want to read it for yourselves: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/PLEX_2151.pdf . It is perfectly obvious what Gates is doing - stepping in and killing an already advanced project because the competition would use it, whereas Microsoft had nothing in Word to counter them.

I called you on your opening tactic, no doubt straight out of the Microsoft Astroturfer's Manual, "Make unsubstantiated, plausible sounding claims in a confident, condescending tone". You then responded with the "create an excessively detailed diversion" tactic. I don't buy into that, you then respond with "if you had read the entire xxx, then bog the opponent down with interpretation".

What next? "Never let an opponent get in the last word"? Does it have a flowchart?

Seriously, why don't you people just go away and leave Slashdot alone?

Re:Not true about Word Perfect

[man_of_mr_e]

I'm sorry that I had to call you on your typical "Take the comment out context and manipulate it" ploy. Reading the whole email does *NOT* say what you claim it does.

It's saying, quite specifically, that Microsoft apps cannot use the API's if they don't let their competitors use them. Yes, it's killing a set of API's, but it's also saying "Our apps can't use them either".

Why should Microsoft be under any compunction to provide free API's to a competitor if they themselves are not getting any value from them. It would be wrong of Microsoft to withdraw the API's, then use them in their apps. That didn't happen, and the emails point that out.

Re:Not true about Word Perfect

[dhammabum]

It's saying, quite specifically, that Microsoft apps cannot use the API's if they don't let their competitors use them. Yes, it's killing a set of API's, but it's also saying "Our apps can't use them either".

They didn't use it because as Silverberg pointed out, they couldn't get away with that as those APIs were too public being part of the Chicago shell. So they came up with differrent, unpublished APIs that were separate to the shell that MS could use and others couldn't. This is what Gates was referring to when he wrote: "We should wait until we have a way to do a high level of integration that will be harder for the likes of Notes, Wordperfect to achieve, and which will give Office a real advantage." The integration being between the OS and Office.

This is the abuse of monopoly Novell is whinging about. As I said, hopefully Novell will pursue this so it and the other claims can be tested in court. Also the case would bring out what really happened so we wouldn't be here arguing over interpretations, we would have the full, or at least a fuller, story.

Re:Not true about Word Perfect

[yuhong]

So they came up with differrent, unpublished APIs that were separate to the shell that MS could use and others couldn't.

Proof?

Of course Google would say this

[CptJeanLuc]

A well-known employee of a technology giant that is frequently threatened with antitrust accusations, is asked about whether the break-up of a monopoly is a good thing, and the answer is "no". Hardly any surprise there.

Google spokesman comments about monopolies...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Did tech innovation suffer over the last 10 years because Microsoft wasn't broken up? 'Not really,' said Vinton Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist..."

There speaks a smart guy who works for the potential next anti trust defendant.

He's hardly likely to promote the idea that a monopoly should be broken up or made to pay huge fines is he.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Actually it was a driving force

[Anonymous Coward]

If there had been no Linux and no anti trust case Microsoft would have been under no pressure to search for new technologies to buy up in order to keep a lead over the free opposition. They would have rested on their laurels sat back and enjoyed the upgrade tax.

Now stop pretending to be a Linux supporter who nevertheless sees the problems inherent in it, look yourself in the mirror and admit to yourself at least what you are.

.NET - would we have it?

[jth4242]

Did tech innovation suffer over the last 10 years because Microsoft wasn't broken up?

It would have suffered if they did.

There is a bag of technologies that consist of a virtual machine flexible enough to compile C to (albeit with security compromises), as well as a bunch of other languages (without such compromises). One of them makes it the first purely-functional language to have bindings to an API that makes it actually be usable for something.

The virtual machine can be hosted on desktops, servers, webbrowers and windows phone (Silverlight) and within SQL server (!) (stored procedures).

In particular, it's the also only technology to allow a browser application to share compiled (!) code with it's server component, as well as sharing (uncompiled) UI code with a desktop or phone implementation.

That's about the technologies itself, not the tools for them.

Microsoft is the most innovative of the large IT companies, and by a long, long way. If it was split up, would someone else have made .NET? I think not.

The Microsoft of 15 years ago could be righteously denounced by people who's horizon was limited to the technical side of things (nerds), but to denounce it today is letting your hatred defeat your love of progress.

Think big

[jth4242]

[list of FOSS projects]

As others pointed out, none of those are both innovative and not government-funded.

Can you name one technology that Microsoft innovated?

Microsoft invented Ajax by putting in the non-standard XmlHttpRequest stuff.

People got very upset about it, but in the end it created a mind shift from the www being about content to the www being about applications. I repeat: The "Internet Explorer 5" contained the most important innovation in browser history.

More importantly: .NET

Microsoft is a large company. They usually don't invent a genious new algorithm or user interface or some such - these are things that *small* companies do and then they get bought or copied.

Microsoft innovates by merging many old independent technologies into one, coherent one.

Today, you have MS office bindings from a purely functional language.

And can use the same compiled code in a web browser as well as on a windows phone as well as on a server.

And use a language that is almost as powerful as C++ while being as easy to write and understand as Java.

And design you UI in Blend and have a coder open the same project in VS.

And do the last thing in a browser (Silverlight) or desktop application with little difference.

If that's not innovation, then you don't think big enough.

Thank goodness that MS wasn't destroyed.

Behold Steve Ballmer

[jth4242]

Please. You really have no idea how the industry works, and why some companies thrive and some die. I'll give you a hint, there's one reason, and one reason only that tech companies die.

You're right, but there are many things that contribute to whether one's able to provide what customer's want.

One thing that many competitors are lacking is described in Steve Ballmer's eternal wisdom:

We keep working and working and working and working [...], and we keep coming and coming [...] and kept after and kept after [...], and coming and coming and coming and coming [...]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La_u1jPLOIA

Yes, it's funny, and yes, that's what they do better than others.

God help us all

[nurb432]

The beast has awakened from its sleep.

Absense makes the heart grow fonder.

[westlake]

Linux is huge, what the public really wants even though the masses aren't smart enough to realize it's what they want. They're happy as long as we spoon feed it to them with Android phones and in embedded devices they use and love while calling Linux that freaking weird hard to use thing their nephew likes.

In other words, Linux is huge where the geek is kept at arm's length.

The Google phone is Android and its mascot, Evo, is Eve's brother from Wall-E - and not Tux.

The apps on yout Internet enabled HDTV may be powered by Linux.

But the UI will be defined by Mitsubishi, Samsung or Sony. The apps by the needs of Netflix, The NFL and Major League Basebakkm Hula and Pandora.

If H.265/HEVC delivers 1080p video at half the bit rate of WebM, and scakes to a futuristic 4kx2k home theater then HEVC it will be.

The browser may not exist recogizable form. There will be an app store but not app-get.

No Linux distribution, no respository, as the geek understands it.

Source code may be posted - somewhere.

But the chances are quite good your wife will veto any hack into your big screen home theater ptoject that won't be paid off until 2015.

So much Microsoft hate here

[TexMachina]

We've got Google and Apple fighting over who get's to rule the world and you boneheads are all stuck in in the 90's hating on Microsoft. Should I be fearing IBM as well? Hell, Slashdot is still using Bill Gates the Borg for the Microsoft icon. The guy hasn't even been running the place in over 3 years.

so the tech bubble didn't happen?

[decora]

what are you saying dude?

no, thats not what i meant by crushing

[decora]

i meant, they use illegal means to destroy competitors, and not vague 'monopoly' stuff. really illegal stuff like paying off the BSA

but i know there are people who dont believe any business activity is ever illegal. so whatever.

what about theft of IP?

[decora]

microsoft is very soon going to sue every single linux company claiming that they have stolen patents from microsoft.

meanwhile, every major microsoft product was based on "stealing" the intellectual property of others.

the main difference was that in the 80s and early 90s nobody, including microsoft, cared about patent litigation in software.

--

i could also go into the various other things microsoft did, like

its relationship with the BSA,

what it did to Dr DOS

the way it forced Dell (and other OEMs) to not sell competing operating systems

the way it double bills universities for licenses (they buy computers from Dell with a Windows license, but the university already has a 10000 seat license)

the way it bribed teachers to use microsoft products in the classroom

the way it used prison labor to package its products

and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on

'fair competition' thing is one thing. what Microsoft did is pretty far off from what normal people would consider fair.

Re:what about theft of IP?

[man_of_mr_e]

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Your comment about "double billing" is a prime example. No, Microsoft doesn't "double bill" them, because they don't have a 10,000 seat license. They have a 10,000 seat "upgrade" license. These licenses allow them to upgrade from the Home version to the Enterprise version, and the pricing is reduced because it reflects the fact they've already bought a license from Dell for the home version.

But, if you actually had any idea of how the licenses are bought, and what the contracts say (I Know, i used to work in IT for a .edu), then your theories wouldn't be so popular in your head.

Prison labor? Even if it's true, Prisoners do work for the community all the time. They get paid for it too.

And no, Dell is not forced to not sell competing products, and in fact they DO sell competing products. The only thing Microsoft did not allow is shipping more than one OS on the same computer, if that computer included Windows.

And no, I doubt very much that Microsoft is going to sue every linux company, hell, I doubt they'll even sue more than a dozen. Barnes and noble refused to license the patents their using, if they'd paid the licenseing fee that Microsoft legally can charge, they wouldn't be being sued.

We'll see how they prevail on the lawsuit. If it turns out that B&N did infringe their patents, then Microsoft was in their right to sue them.

Are you seriously suggesting that Patents and Copyright enforcement is evil? If that's the case, then anyone suing for GPL violations is evil. Oopps, but that's different...

dude?

[decora]

you realize that 99.999% of normal people are going to read those emails from bill gates and decide that what he did was morally wrong?

Re:dude?

[man_of_mr_e]

It was morally wrong to say "If our competitors don't have access to these API's, then our apps shouldn't as well"?

That's the problem with taking them out of context.

Re:dude?

[dhammabum]

It's not only morally wrong, if proven it is a felony. Microsoft were found guilty of contravening the Sherman Antitrust Act in this way regarding Internet Explorer and Netscape.

if MS cut off Office support

[decora]

apple would have died on the vine.

this is not me making shit up, its all over the internet if you choose to dig there i welcome it.

Re:if MS cut off Office support

[drsmithy]

this is not me making shit up, its all over the internet if you choose to dig there i welcome it.

Indeed. If it's on the Internet, it must be true !

what if i said its all over the well researched

[decora]

articles in numerous magazines, journals, books, and court case records?

people used to say 'its there, just go to the library and its there'.

now they say the internet.

sometimes i get tired of doing other people's research for them. especially when i know they aren't really interested in reality and are arguing in bad faith.