Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to use Linux Defense
Sean Garagan writes
"Well, it looks like MS is going to start using Linux to
try and save itself. According to an article at PCWeek,
MS will use Linux as an example of why it doesn't have a
monopoly when it questions the gov'ts last witness, an MIT
Economics prof. " If this is true, then I think it's a nice nail
in their coffin- the only real threat to their monopoly is
tens of thousands of programmers working for free?
Great defense. We're not a monopoly, really.
... and they're aren't any. The fact programmers were payed or not has nothing to do with it. If someone hacks together an operating system but pays $X in wages to have it done, that somehow makes the system MORE open? I don't get it.
As it is anyone can write an operating system, (assuming they have the technical knowledge, of course), so I don't see how MS can be a monopoly.
Its is a monopoly if no one can successfully break into the market. Linux has been trying to do it for years, then their is MacOS and all the corporate Unix varients which are all declining. In order for their not to be a monopoly their has to be a alternative choice that has all of the programs offered by the leading OS.
Clearly McSoft is not going to be a monopoly in 5 years. And they are becoming less so now. Whether they are now a legal monopoly is debatable.
But that doesn't change the fact that they were a monopoly and that during that time they acted in a criminal manner. For that they need to be prosecuted.
It may turn out that DOJ need not take any measure for the future, but past crimes are not erased by current situations.
So, have you all figured out why there has been so
much Linux "press" lately? MS-Spin-O-Rama in full
swing.
MS had a monopoly in one area. (desktop OS)
They used that monopoly to stop competition in another area. (web browsers)
There it is.
What remedy will the judge apply?
I can't get a computer with Linux installed at Sears, but I also can't buy a Mac there, or for that matter, non - Craftsman tools, but they do exist.
3 Computer stores in my area that sell Linux:
1) Best Buy (Saw at least Red Hat 5.2)
2) Microcenter (Red Hat, some others)
3) CompUSA
I'll grant you that MS's presence makes it so that most companies don't have any desire to get into the OS market because MS domainates the x86 OS market, but that isn't the definition of a monopoly from a legal standpoint.
Actually the Sears in my area doesn't sell computers. Some local computer shops will install Linux for you. Nearly every computer store in town sells Linux. Where is this town you ask? Redmond Washington - the home of Microsoft.
I guess WaldenBooks doesn't count as a computer store, but in my area they have RedHat on the shelf in their Computers Books section. That's not bad.
How can they rebut this
As it is anyone can write an operating system, (assuming they have the technical knowledge, of course), so I don't see how MS can be a monopoly.
To write anything more than a trivial base OS, it would cost more than $100,000, and that's for embedded - at least that's the minimum that I ever charged. You're stupid. Cost has everthing to do to barriers to entry, as well as a closed API. Anybody that has experience with coding knows this, don't you?
Forget Microsoft. The world would be a much better place if Joel Klein and the rest would leave MS alone, and go after an indstry with much stronger barriers to entry: popular music. If Linus Torvalds had decided to start a band, The Phat Penguins, and tried to challenge the big music cartels, he wouldn't have gotten anywhere in countries like the US.
The fact is, retail stores aren't the only place to go for software. Just because you can't pay for a computer with a generic, bloated, obnoxious pre-install, which automatically starts in a proprietary GUI on top of the OS GUI, it doesn't mean that the barriers to entry in the OS world are high. Internet distribution makes OS entry easy, but success takes a combination of luck and quality.
Microsoft has ridden the wave of luck, but quality will win out in the end, especially when Windows 2000 hits the fan.
What are these "many areas" you refer to?
Yeah, but Russia is not suing Microsoft, now are they?
Right, and ATT never had a phone monopoly, because I
could always string a wire between my house and my
neighbors and set up my own phone system.
Yes and I can make a car in my garage, that doesn't mean there aren't high barriers to entry in the automobile market.
In MS' case most of the barriers to entry were erected by MS. They have all sorts of exclusive dealing arrangements with major PC manufacturers as well as unwritten 'understandings' regarding the preinstallation of competitors products. This is why it is almost impossible for Joe computer buyer to get anything but Win95 preinstalled. Linux has how much DESKTOP market share? 1%? How much of that was preinstalled? How many of the preinstalled systems came from major PC vendors? Hmmm... smells like monopoly to me.
Greg
...Does Microsoft have any plans of porting MS Office to Linux? If no then why not - if Linux is a legitimate competitor then surely Microsoft would want a share of that market? Somehow I already know the answer to this question.
Engaged OEMs in closed contracts that expressidly forbit installation of non-MS OS's. Hell, IBM can't even preinstall THEIR OWN OS (OS2/Warp).
So, what? Nobody forced IBM to install Windows on their Aptivas. Oh, what's that you say? IBM wouldn't be able to sell their Aptivas if they didn't have Windows installed? So, you're saying that consumers WANT Windows? If consumers don't want Windows, then IBM wouldn't bother to put Windows on its computers. The fact that it makes good business sense for them to go exclusively Windows over OS/2 is the result of consumers choosing Windows over OS/2, not the result of Microsoft being a big schoolyard bully.
Engaged OEMs in closed contracts that mandate the installation of (and payment for) MS Office on EVERY pc they sell. Want WordPerfect? Too bad. Have a copy of Office already and don't want to pay for another? Too bad. I can personally attest to this from buying my PC from Dell...
Same argument. Dell could ship with StarOffice, Linux, and Netscape 4.5. But they chose to deal with Microsoft. And, Microsoft made an offer to sell Windows, which Dell accepted. That's life in the big city. Oh, yeah, and nobody's forced to buy from Dell. Or from any other OEM who sells its computers with MS Office. People WANT these products. Is it illegal for MS to sell them what they want?
Consumed smaller startup companies simply to squash NON-MS technologies.
Consumed smaller startup companies to corner the market on emerging technologies.
You say consumed like Microsoft is some animal, with the power to pounce on and attack anything it sees. If small companies choose to sell out to MS, and MS chooses to buy small companies, then why is MS the evil one? Why not blame the small companies; they're the pushers here. If I wrote some new software, and started up a business to sell it, I'd be overjoyed to have MS dump a truckload of money on my doorstep in exchange for the new business. I'm sure those smaller startups were, too.
Embedded formerly SEPARATE programs into Windows, for the sole purpose of discouraging purchase of competing programs. Case-in-point: IE 4.0. A separate product (you can download it and it ALONE from the MS web site), but tied to Win98 because it's "a vital part of the OS." Bah.
Saying "bah" doesn't make your accusation more valid. What is the so-called-illegal part here? That's already been ruled to be OK by the appeals court. Oh, and I personally think using HTML for help over RTF is a valid reason for bundling IE. Windows Help has always been an obnoxious hack on RTF, but HTML is designed to be used in just the way Windows Help used RTF. I don't see the problem with this upgrade.
Additionally, IE 4 includes some DLLS which weren't originally part of Win 95, but have become popular to use by some 3rd party developers. It's a lot easier for MS and the 3rd parties if IE comes with Windows, instead of distributing it with each piece of software that uses it.
Besides, MS isn't the only company to ship multiple products in one package. Every linux distributor I know of ships a whole bunch of software with the Linux kernel. But, I'll stick with MS. Should Microsoft be harassed because they bundled freecell? That was, and certainly still is, not an integral part of the OS. The same is true with EDIT.COM or Notepad. Where do you draw the line?
Bastardized standards, licensed technologies, and protocols in such a manner as to make the MS-Way the One True Way. Java, streaming media, and DHTML, to name a few examples.
Um... I'll take it one charge at a time.
Joe Schmo stands NO CHANCE of being able to successfully market his software, whether it be an OS or application. Sure, you can begin to, but as soon as it appears on MS's radar, you will be embraced-and-extended, or squashed.
Joe Schmo can survive if his software meets his custmoers wants. If MS copies his idea, then adds stuff to make it incompatible with Joe's work, then Joe had better get to coding, and make his version do all that MS's does.
Oh yeah, and what, pray tell, does squash mean? Beaten in the market by a superior product? How is that illegal?
MS has the most popular OS. They used this to corner the market regarding Office Suites, Internet Browsers, Server OS's, and others. Not to mention the attempted takeovers of the ISP market (MSN, anyone?), news media (MSNBC, anyone?), and high-end graphics market (Chrome Effects, Farenheit, SGI deals, anyone?), to name just a few.
Now the exaggeration and FUD begins. Anytime Microsoft goes into a business venture, it's automatically an attempted takeover of the industry? It was this part of the comment that really pushed me to reply. This passage here really shows a fundamental anti-Microsoft bias, causing a tinted view of the facts.
With that in mind, my real, basic question is this: Should an action be illegal because you don't like it? That seems to be the idea behind this posting. How does any of this justify the government's role in the matter? It's a commonly accepted fact that the software industry is different from most. Patents are silly, marginal costs are low, and turnover is rapid. How is it, then, that traditional government definitions of predatory monopoly should apply here? While MS is, or approaches, the government definition of a monopoly, Windows and Office are a far cry from becoming the economic definition of a monopoly. Witness the revival of Apple and the booming growth of Linux to see that.
Neil Stevens
flames to billgates@microsoft.com, comments to multivac @ fcmail.com
Am I the only person picing up an incredibly arrogent and distainful tone in the Micro$oft pre-rebuttals they post?
:(
I mean, to rebut one's arguments based on logic and careful considered thought is Good (even if that logic is counter to what we'd otherwise wish to be true) but damn, this stuff is _nasty_.
Lines like "Professor So-and-so isn't aware of the laws of supply and demand" (isn't the professor in question an economist?!) aren't logical rebuttal, they're personal attacks.
No way to make a good impression on a judge or jury. If MS wanted to come off as the poor, opressesed, underdog innovators, they sure are doing a good impression of monopolistic bastards.
These people really are _evil_.
DG
"This does NOT MAKE SENSE!" :)
My take is merely trying to restrain MS in various ways is counterproductive. They are, if nothing else, smart and will find ways around the courts orders. We should hit them where it hurts.
Since at this time, we are almost all forced to use Windows because of the monopoly, we should put together a class action lawsuit against MS based on lost productivity because Microsoft knowingly released buggy code. Since pretty much every company and individual will admit to having both lost work and time to rebooting hung or crashed systems, the resulting award could be in the billions. And that is before punitive damages.
Now, I admit that this is a slippery slope. Do any of us want to be held accountable for bugs in our own software? Come on, we all have them, like it or not. Well, I think it *is* different for Microsoft. We do not have the choice of running "another OS" because frankly, for the apps that we must run in the business world (or for the most part at home), they only run on Windows. Let Microsoft be held accountable for that. In the case of say, Redhat, their way out is simple - you don't like our bugs, buy Debian or S.U.S.E.
Come on, there must be one greedy lawyer out there willing to take this on for, say 25% of a few billion in award!!
Oh! You mean like letting Computer Science departments use the NT source code for research under NDAs and then co-opting anything thus found for themselves. How the hell does one publish the results of any work done under NDA? They don't! To university deans, Microsoft comes off like Daddy Warbucks because of the donation of equipment and source code but only Microsoft can benefit from any findings from this environment because of the NDA. Microsoft is not stupid. They are heavy handed dinosaurs but they are not stupid. Just where do the bulk of Linux developers come from anyway? In the short term, Microsoft can afford to lose some market share from Linux. In the long term, they can deprive Linux of much of it's "collective intelligence" by co-opting the work, discoveries, and maybe even the loyalties of future Comp. Sci. majors. They can do long term damage to their only credible threat and co-opt an entire scientific discipline for themselves. Now THAT folks is truly innovative borging.
...that's beautiful. Anyone who has worked on longer MS projects, using VC++ or VB (like me) ought to be able to tell you about DLL HELL -- one person installs new MS software, the installer replaces a current dll with an newer or older one, BOOM! goodbye software.
I bet ten percent of our customers had this exact problem -- the wares started crashing right after an MS update or app install.
Don't get me started on their damn tool updates. VB3->VB4->VB5 was enough to make our group near catatonic.
IMHO, they fit the description exactly. High prices, low quality -- as opposed to the "Anti-Monopoly: Linux". Low prices, High quality. Go figure. Still a few libXXX.so problems sometimes. Easily solved after a quick investigation, tho.
they never really innovate. the only things they really did that i liked (the idea anyway, not the implementation) was OLE and the wizards.
in general, they scan the horizon or other products for innovative ideas ("inventions") and steal them, then simplify them for the masses.
of course, they stole *that* idea from apple, who stole it from xerox. apple would probably be one top now if they had gotten out of the hardware business and/or ported their os to pee-cees.
i don't think the lawsuit matters very much either way. it looks like linux is going to squash them, and the issue really is not about "today" or "the future", but their past behavior. and they have behaved illegally on a number of occasions.
sick 'em.
Yeah, Microsoft does innovate...
and if you put a chimpanzee in front of computer and force him to type 24 hours a day he might accidentally create a program after a few years.
The only innovation Microsoft creates is in the marketing department -- those are the best (or worst, depending on your point of view) people in that business.
Why don't all you Linux zealots sell short some Microsoft stock? Heck, the really zealous can donate the profits (heh, heh) to the FSF when MS stock goes in the toilet.
Given that everybody wants to tweak their setup anyways, pre-installed linux would be a waste of time...since I would repartition and reformat and re-install anyways!
And you can easily get a computer without Windows pre-installed...build your own!
jce2@po.cwru.edu
"It's a monopoly if no one can successfully break into the market"?
First of all, Linux has definatively broken into the OS market.
Second of all, if all my competitors suck in their marketing ability, am *I* the one who should be punished?
I'm sorry...this anti-trust law stuff just STINKS of "These people were too successful, so we're going to sue them to satisfy class envy."
jce2@po.cwru.edu
Vroommmmm, did you miss that one. You suffer from the 747 effect. The point is not that Dell or anyone accepted these contracts, its that Microsoft felt the obligation to make those contracts exclusive. This is enforcing a /vertical/ monopoly. Now for instance Taco Bell does not sell Coke, that is a verticle monopoly, but wait lookee here, Taco Bell is owned by Pepsi. Hmmmmm......
Puleeze... Like exclusivity clauses in contracts define whether a company is a monopoly. Sounds more like good business sense to me. I'd like to see the govt. sue McDonalds cause I can't get a Pepsi there. BTW, Pepsi doesn't own Taco Bell, or KFC, or Pizza Hut.
Um, vroom again. If they're purchased they are not `Non-MS' technologies anymore are they.
The point is the original posted claimed the Microsoft is buying companies and shutting them down to sqash their technologies. Someone name two of these companies for me. I didn't think so.
And you can't argue that incorporating that buggy mess into the OS (the UI actually) was good for the comsumer. It creates more overhead, and crashes a lot more
It saves an extra download, extra installation, and hasn't made my system and less stable. Plus I can still use Netscape and Opera, so what's the issue?
I don't. Not even at work. Does Microsoft let you use another OS at work?
Oh, now I get it. You are one of those small minded people whose world view is shaken if someone actually disagrees with you. Then they must be part of some big conspiracy. Well, that probably is a comforting way to look at things if you can't face reality.
Actually if the stupid gov't would get the hell out of the way the market will take care of everything, and quicker than any court system. Linux proves that if nothing else.
Doesn't a patent only protect an innovation for 20 years after that anyone can use it for free.
Misleading, PepsiCo did own them, and still has a stake in them. They just are managed differently than they used to be. Taco Bell sells Pepsi, simply because they don't want to sell a competitor's brand; it takes money out of their pockets. Of course, Coke has similar control over the world soda market, so don't feel bad for them.
The MS lackeys in the press weren't being pro-Linux for nothing after all. I knew it had to be something more than just random curiosity fueling all of the Linux articles this last year.
I dont know why so many of u think that MS is monopoly. A company with a monopoly has high prices for low quality products. MS has reasonable prices for terrific products. They are not perfect. They have made plenty of mistakes before as we all do. But as a whole they have made such a positive influence on the computer industry, has made so many things possible with a computer, has made computers way easier to use for the average user than a command line, and has made so many innovations, that to acuse them of hurting the computer industry is just plain UNFAIR.
You think there should be competition in the operating system business? OK, heres whats wrong with that. Do u really think the video tape and VCR industry would be where it is today if there were two or more tape standards (VHS and Beta)? NO WAY. People would not put up with all the confusion and craziness. They only want to watch movies! Well its the same situation here. If the industry is to prosper as a whole, we need to reach the GENERAL PUBLIC. The average computer user does not care which OS does this and that. They want to learn one OS and get on with their life and be productive. I know a lot of u may disagree with Windows and MS's plans. But they are plenty adequate to say the least compared to any competitor. Why do u think Apple lost so much users? Because MS killed them? No, Apple stopped inovating and MS quickly took advantage of that. If MS wasnt innovating then they should be easily overtaken...but its not gonna happen any time soon. They have so many plans about the future and their OS is gonna be totally beyond the competitors. They spend billions on R&D and I truly see they know what they are doing. Anything u can say that may seem monopolistic about them is just tough competition and theres nothing wrong with that.
People want standards and fast. They benefit everyone as a whole. Windows is growing rapidly and getting better all the time and people like the consistensy of MS's products. I have seen very few companies with their level of quality.
Now who can argue with that?
It isn't Microsoft today that is on trial. We the nerds who have driven the computer revolution since its early days now are working to repair the damage done to the computer industry. The crimes committed by microsoft in the past must be atoned for.
Microsoft telling us its not a monopoly because Linux has gained market share is like telling us that since the building already burned down its no longer thier fault. The only way to repair the damage done is to remove thier market share back to what it was in the Win 3.1 days. Any ideas?
They must think everyone is too stupid to keep track.
Judging by the non-technical people I've talked to about this stuff, Microsoft is right. Sorry, wish it were otherwise. The average person does seem to be too stupid. Or is that not interested enough? Too short an attention span?
...after the debut of Windows-2000 conduct tests by "Independent Media Outlets" to let the world know how much our product has improved...
Uh,no. W2K is going to be a disaster release for MS. You hear that buzzsaw in the background? That's MS chopping off branches of their source tree because there is no way they could ever get those parts ( a good deal of Active Directory is dying, and that is what we _do_ know of) to work. The betas of their software are falling months and months behind, and are getting lousy reviews everywhere. Their code base has been completely rewritten ( ~60%-70%), it runs like a dog even on good machines ( p2-300 minimum requirement?), and that's _before_ the MS Cruft Ambulance comes to kill off the last "super-showstoppers" before they toss the junk out the door almost a year late. That just doesn't look that good at all.
Good, points, though, I just wanted to reason with you that MS isn't going to gain a penny with W2K. It has all the brewings of a disaster. All they've got left is their all-star marketdroids.
"BULLSHIT.
How? I don't see anyone except geeks and nerds using Linux. Idon't seem maistream rushing out
and buying it or even downloading."
That's because the mainstream person is DUMB. Running Unix takes some knowledge. We'll get it more user friendly as time goes on.
Given the number of people who are asking increasingly stupid questions, do we WANT Linux to go main-stream just yet?
"And how will the market get rid of MS OS, it can't"
They'll buy other operating systems. That's not a difficult concept.
"People buy more apps for MS and more people develop for MS. the only way someone can break in and change the market iws to develop an OS that offers the same compatability with more stability, features and a lower cost. And no one can do that."
If all that is true, then Microsoft DESERVES its market share! If you want to break Microsoft's "dominance", then make a better operating system!
The reason why Microsoft has been doing so well is because the customers have chosen to buy microsoft products. Windows is pre-installed on many computers because the VENDERS chose to do that.
Gee, if you're offering $60/hr or $240 flat to get Linux installed on your system, I'm sure that there would be SEVERAL people willing to do the job for you. So why not just ask around?
You can't tune Windows 95 or NT very well. Linux can be tuned and tweaked, and the time saved later is well worth the inital time tweaking the system.
jce2@po.cwru.edu
Imagine Sony would have existed when the TV
was invented and had gained a marketshare of 90%.
Later, when hifis became common, sony had sold a
proprietary "plug all in one" System, combining
their (Sony-) TV's with their (Sony-)
taperecorders, (Sony-)tuners etc.
If you then had considered to buy a hifi,
you might already have had a sony-TV,
and because it's easier to plug everything in your
(Sony-)TV, you might have bought a Sony-Hifi.
Think the story further and now tell me how much
do you think a (Sony-)VCR would cost in this
(Sony-)world today.
Who can argue with it?
How about the MIT Economics prof who pointed out what M$ did to an evolving market: the web browser. Before M$ screwed SpyGlass out of royalties by dumping an inferior web browser (I.E. 1.0 & 2.0) on the public, by pre-installing it in Win95 (plus pack initially, mind you), Netscape had sales from Navigator as high as 58.8 Million in revenue in a single quarter. Let's consider that again:
FIFTY EIGHT POINT EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS U.S. REVENUE IN A SINGEL QUARTER
Sounds like demand is there. A company not attempting to protect and extend a monopoly would have gone in and charged money, competed, and taken that market share AND PROFITS away. But look what they did instead - the dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into development and marketing to try and destroy Netscape because hey saw a threat in the possibility of web browsers becoming a new application platform.
If numbers like FIFTY EIGHT POINT EIGHT MILLION in revenue could have merely continued (keep in mind, there were fewer people on line in those days and competition would drive prices down eventually). A CONSERVATIVE estimate could easily put the market for Web Browser software around (and here's another big number for you)
A QUARTER OF A BILLION DOLLARS ANUALLY
Do you honestly think nobody would have wanted that money?
Tell us all again how Microsoft didn't do anything wrong. A QUARTER OF A BILLION DOLLAR market would have brought innovation left and right. If you consider yourself a part of the "General Public", then your asshole must hurt. And you can thank Bill Gates for it.
Little if any investment... So, if Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and KFC all decide to stock only Coca-cola products, PepsiCo won't mind? If people demand Cola-Cola, and Coke is willing and able to supply it, these food joints will carry it? Seriously, it would be interesting to know what agreements these companies have w/ regards to using Pepsi products. In particular, why can't I buy RC Cola? :)
You said that the browser will become an operating system?
No, I said it was a potential threat as a new application platform. DOS was an OS, Win3.1 was an application platform. You don't know much do you?
Thats why the browser is free--its part of the OS.
IE is free because its $0 price tag hurt Netscape. PERIOD! By the way? When does Word & Excell come free? Seems to me that WP & Spreadsheet apps are more important than 'Net connection to most people. And by the way, since when did parsing HTML rank up there with process scheduling, memory allocation, and device access?? I'm sure D. Ritchie, A. Tannenbaum, and even that source code stealing bastard D. Cutler (BTW, I don't like what you did w/ Project OZIX, Dave) would be interested to understand the reasoning behind that.
They are evolving their OS and making it free to
download is pretty nice of them if you ask me. They see its so important that they want you to have it.
"Evolving". Yeah. Right
Its a UTILITY. Utilites are very often brought into the OS because its so convenient
Really?!?! Where's the Word Processing "Utility"?
Does ID software have to worry about the game market when the "3D 1st person shooter" "UTILITY" get "Integrated" into the next 1/2-assed code monstrosity to get puked out Redmond???
and an OS would
not evolve without new utilites. Thats just the nature of the computer industry.
Utility or Feature? Notepad is a utility. I can (and have) fucking delete the pice of shit and guess what??? My OS doesn't crash because of it(that I can prove, anyhow:)! A TCP/IP stack and process allocation in the kernel are features.
It hurts companies but
they should certainly realize this in time and get into a stronger position (which Netscape has been a bit
slow in doing).
No, it hurts consumers. If STACKER source code hadn't been stolen, STAC INC would have continued to improve the product. Perhaps add new FEATURES to it. Instead M$ mugged them and got away with a slap on the wrist. And once again, the consumer takes it in the ass. Thanks Bill.
So where does it end? With the OS cash cow, Microsoft has no accountability and can run projects at a loss in order to destroy competition. It can use resources from its EXISTING OS MONOPOLY to gain monopolies in everything else. The can, and they do. They are guilty of preadatory pricing ($0 browser to kill Netscape) and collusion (exclusive "partnerships" that keep M$ competitors locked out of markets like the OEM deals to kill netscape). I only hope for the sake of the industry that the DOJ nails them to the fucking wall.
BTW, did you ask to have your brain washed that clean? Or did using M$ products just automagicly do it to you?
Boy scott, you're a real Spinmeister. How much does M$ pay you to do this? The only reason that anyone can make a "Sony compatable" anything is because Sony uses industry standard interfaces that are well defined and documented for signal input into VCR's, output from TV's and even getting power. So agian I ask you: Where's the fucking full Win32 API? It' seems so ironic that M$ will bitch about Sun's control of the Java platfrom when they don't release the Win32 API.
Do you get paid by the post? Or does your F.U.D. have to make a good argument for you to get money from Uncle Bill?
I have read like five diferent definitions of what a monopoly is. And they have all been right in their on way but here is a few quick definitions I came across that I think are important. Anti-Trust, because the suit against M$ is a Anti-Trust Violation suit. "Anti-Trust" legislation is designed to prevent business from price-setting or other secret collaboration which circumvents the natural forces of a free market economy and gives those engaging in the anti-trust conduct, a covert competitive edge. Also known as "anti-combines" or "competion" legislation. Monopoly illustartes a commercial advantage enjoyed by only one or a select few companies in which only those companies can trade in a certain area. Some monopolies are legal, such as thse temporaril created by patents. Others are secretly built by conspiracy between two or more companies and are prohibited by law. This is clearly shown in the "Halloween Documents". I hopes this helps in clearing up the mess a little.
I have heard that MS has a group of people on thier payroll whose jobs are to create the appearance of a grassroots effort to support windows. Face it, MS products are crap and are overpriced.
You can get redhat linux for $59 but Windows is $100.
VCR makers don't have to pay for VHS. I remember when the video store used to have a VHS and a BETA version of each movie, it wasn't "confusion & crazyness".
MS employees used to call Apple R&D south.
(Other then MS Bob that is...)
If that is the case, then why didn't M$ make available the FAT32 FS for pre Win95-OSR2 licensee's. After all, all the other "innovation's" in Win95-OSR2 are freely available. Oh I forgot, only THAT is available as a FREE $90 upgrade.
we need a STANDARD that
all software can be based on, not several different ones.
Right. Same OS for mission critical banking transaction and running your 5 year old's reader rabbit. Mediocrity, here we come
the web will be indiscernable from the local desktop...MS got it right again
Yep. That's one view. There may be another view 1,000 times better but as soon as someone starts to develop it, M$ will kill them. Looks like you're mixing your verb tense here. "Will be" and "got"? Please.
It is so illogical to say theres something wrong with adding vital
utilities to an OS.
I agree. I'm saying there is something wrong with making ONE PATICULAR "UTILITY" a dependancy of running the OS. I can nuke Notepad from my system. I can't nuke IE, and Yes, I do want to because I hate it. I hate the company that makes it, I hate the fact that it is forced on me, and I hate the fact that as a consumer I don't have the choice of REMOVING a "UTILITY" I DON"T like from MY copy of an OS!
And it is quite ironic that the government chose this particular
moment to try to interfere with the evolution of computing.
You're right. It's about 3 years too late. Back when Win95 developers just "happened" to be late in releasing limited Win32 API info to third party app developers and yet somehow the 32bit versions of Word & Excell just managed to get out months before Wordperfect & others. That is the point they should have stepped in. M$ need to be broken up. Applications over here, OS over there. No exclusive cross licencing deals w/ each other, no prefered developer status. OS division relies on revenue from it's OS products, apps rely on thier revenue from applications. If M$ had to fight on a level playing field, they'ed do some REAL innovation or die (like they should).
TECHNOLOGY IS DRIVING THE
ECONOMY.
Yeah. And I would just love to see you go try and get capital backing for a start-up company that may even remotely compete with Microsoft. If those fucks in Redmond were in check, the economy would be OVERDRIVING! .
"IE is free because its $0 price tag hurt Netscape. PERIOD!"
The web browser was destined to become free. Mosaic was free during the time that Netscape charged BUSINESSES. The client of a server-client pair is destined to be free, because it's something that you want to hand out on the street. The SERVER is where you make the money.
"By the way? When does Word & Excell come free?"
Much more complex applications, much harder to write, and they weren't good canidates to become objects.
"And by the way, since when did parsing HTML rank up there with process scheduling, memory allocation, and device access??"
It's a common task of most applications these days, therefore, it deserves to be in a library. They didn't just integrate a browser, they also gave programmers a quick way to parse and display HTML and create quick web-browsers with a few lines of code. If Internet Explorer 4 wasn't so buggy, we wouldn't be complaining about it.
"Really?!?! Where's the Word Processing "Utility"?"
umm...Notepad and Wordpad.
And no, the Web browser is NOT pre-loaded. The HTML parser library is, but not the browsing part of the code.
"They are guilty of preadatory pricing ($0 browser to kill Netscape)"
So I'm not allowed to give anything away? And they sold something called "Internet Explorer Plus" for a while for like $20.
And the browsers were not what most of Netscapes income came from when Microsoft entered the market..the SERVERS is where they are making the money.
And people STILL go out of their way to download and use Netscape even with Internet Explorer 4 built in! And btw, you can UNINSTALL the Active Desktop if you want your old shell back.
People have been striving to make criminal offenses out of what they don't like about Microsoft products. The only thing that is criminal is the whole Java affair and they're paying for it now. No one has and no one ever will be forced to use Microsoft products.
Even before I knew I was going to go full time over to Linux, I knew I would never upgrade to Windows 98..cause I already had all the features available that I cared about that were offered in Windows 98.
So I decided not to upgrade. No one's forcing you to upgrade.
People just want to make things that they don't like about Microsoft criminal.
jce2@po.cwru.edu
The line about infiltrating various forums such as discussion sites and newsgroups sounds plausible--MS did this strategy with OS/2 on Compuserve in 1990.
It's 9:30pm and I can count at least 12 responses that this person has retorted to his original post over the course of 3 hours.
Someone needs a life or isn't getting much work done. (Unless he works for MS)
um cough cough mac, amiga, os/2. Windows isn't the only OS that claims to be user-friendly
MS doesn't use real HTML! They use their own proprietary version of html which means that it's impossible to use another browser (such as mozilla) to replace the MS engine.
"You are evading the point. The matter is not whether companies have been force or not to
pre-install Windows; the problem is that customers are forced to buy it, whether or not they want it."
WHAT??
Name ONE time that Bill Gates has pointed a gun at somebody and FORCED them to buy a computer with Windows 95 installed on it. That's the only way that customers would be FORCED to buy Windows 95. There are several ways to avoid buying Windows 95 while buying a computer.
"You keep missing the point. Anti-trust laws were not written to defend smaller companies
from big ones like Microsoft, but rather to protect the customers and general public from the effects of a privately-held monopoly."
Bullshit. They were written by government officials who wanted to gain power over the American people. There is no good reason to have anti-trust laws, they are just one step closer to communism...but anyways...
"For example, what if I'm willing to pay the high price for the bugfix-release Windows 98, but don't want IE 4.0?"
Then de-install the part that instantatiates IE 4.0. The HTML parser and other parts of IE 4 are used by OTHER parts of the operating system besides IE 4.0..yes, it IS completely integrated into the operating system, in several different dll's. They are NOT forcing you to use IE 4.0. They are taking code and allowing other parts of the operating system to re-use it, and allowing YOU to re-use that code if you want to.
"Your answer would seem to be: `No one forces you to use Microsoft. Go get another OS.' But what if my business already depends on Windows-based software? What other OS can I get?"
And who made that decision? You? If you REALLY think that it is becoming a problem, then migrate your business over to Linux.
"The problem is that IE 5.0, being a Web Browser, is by no means an essential system facility,"
WRONG...I.E. 4.0 or 5.0 is split into several parts, and several of those parts are used by OTHER APPLICATIONS (such as the layout engine and the html parser). Notepad is NOT re-used by other applications and therefore, you can remove it without trouble.
"And, show me a computer vendor that pre-installs GNU/Linux, and I'll show you dozens (hundreds? thousands?) that force you to buy Windows."
So? Buy from that vendor that pre-installs Linux!
jce2@po.cwru.edu
if it wasn't for the DoJ suit, I don't think anyone would pay much attention to linux or iMac or anything else.
Whats so great about unfettered capitalism? Economic subjugation? I am no socialist, far from it.
You want to talk about coercion, let's talk about Carnegie, the National Guard, and 68 dead.
And yes, any one company that gets too rich and too powerful should be "government controlled". I have a vote and that's how I use it. That's the way it works in a democracy, a participatory form of government.
this, but you of course are free to flatter yourself as much as want.
If Joe Sixpack had reason to integrate 3 times a week, Maple, Mathcad and Mathematica would all be fighting a very different game.
So has he sued anyone lately for not using Windows?
jce2@po.cwru.edu
Which department at MicroSoft do you work at?
- Cliff
IT took forever to get on to the internet if you weren't in the government, etc. because the physical infrastructure didn't exist until recently. ISPs, etc. are a recent invention, and the physical structure of the internet evolved slowly.
Once we got connectivity, it was the standards that allowed us to do anything. Do you really think that it is right for microsoft, once it is in a position of dominance, to create a product which forces people to either take it or leave it? Have you ever tried to make a program which interacts with a MS product? Why are Samba and Wine having such a hard time?
Another interesting question: why are so many fields the windows API "reserved"?
Hehe:) What an oxymoron! Let me guess those top minds run around planting bugs & hacking into the networks of other companies all day:) Considering Mickysoft's trackrecord of contributing origional ideas to the industry (M$ BOB, for example) I'd say Bill is getting ripped off :)
I don't know about this - shrinkwrap license agreements have been thrown out when they have shown to be overly restrictive, unenforceable or other such problems.
This is a special case. You have no choice other than to accept the license (monopoly) and Microsoft has provided software that is significantly lower in quality than the competitors that they killed. I had a NextStep machine up for a couple of years with no reboots!
So, get the license thrown out on grounds that you were forced to accept it - if it said during boot time you had to sing "Hail to Bill" would you do that? Then sue based on the quality and lost time from the SW.
It *has* already been established that Microsoft has a monopoly, what is at question is how they misused that fact. Those special circumstances might prove useful.
Bill Clinton committed a FELONY (albeit a STUPID one that he never HAD to commit) when he lied under oath. No matter HOW much the public hates for the law to be enforced, it MUST be enforced in that matter, otherwise EVERYONE can lie under oath and every trial becomes MEANINGLESS. Purjury strikes at the heart of the legal system and must be dealt with immediately. Even though I am a Libertarian, and could care LESS about Clinton's sexual life, I respect the Republicans for doing what is RIGHT and upholding the legal system, even though it is not politically popular. Sometimes you have to do unpopular things to do what is right.
On the other hand, the Sherman anti-trust laws are COMPLETELY ambigious. They are written so that the government can take ANY business down at a moment's notice, and have a perfect excuse for doing so. Usually, those businesses are the ones that prove that we don't need big government to succeed.
If this trend continues, I will no longer plan to start a business in the USA, I will instead search for countries who actually RESPECT capitalism and let me benefit from my damn hard work. It seems that right now, government doesn't respect the rights of businesses, they just look at them as things to play with, as they look at all citizens as something to play with and then control.
Business is the *true* creater of prosperity in societies, and governments hate to deal with the truth.
jce2@po.cwru.edu
There is more then one company developing operating systems. Lets see, Apple, Be Inc., Microsoft, QNX, Sun...that's at least 5 off the top of my head.
Okay...Apple doesn't count, a Mac is NOT a PC. Sun? I'd say they're aimed more at the Unix/NTS market, which is not (immediately) relevant to the Win9X market.(1) (well, not until W2K anyway) Be? I'll count that one. QNX, well, almost counts except that its designed for embedded systems and not home use. Microsoft, well, they're the subject of the debate, so...
Let me also point out that the non-existance of alternatives does not preclude the existance of a Monopoly. There are aboslute monopolies (100% market share), and legal monopolies. ( 100% market share). Microsoft is not the former, but they are the latter.
Microsoft DID develop Windows 95. I don't care what "ideas" you think they stole in writing it, as long as they didn't take any gpl'd code in Windows 95, the code and the product is THEIRS to do with what they please.
This, we can agree on.
They can also choose whatever terms they want on selling it. It's their right...it's their product. Don't like it? Don't buy it.
I'm sorry, no. They canNOT choose whatever terms they want; exclusionary contracts are illegal, monopoly or not. You cannot punish your customer because they also do business with other companies.
If Windows is supposedly such a bad quality OS, then why the hell would you want the source code to it?
Concievably, one might want it because they want to GASP!!! FIX IT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?. Realistically, I doubt you'd find anybody who would be willing to diginto that mess.
And yes, they have the right to give discounts on products if vendors sign exclusivity (sic) contracts with them.
No they don't, it's illegal to do so, monopoly or not.
Vendors that don't like that can bundle Linux, or BeOs, or several other operating systems.
Realistically, they can't. You forgetting (or intentionally ignoring) the fact that MS has a HUGE (>80%) share of the market. This means that the majority of the software out there is written specifically for Windows. What this means is that those vendors who go with the non-Windows option will lose out on a significant portion of their potential income, because the number of people buying their machines greatly decreases if they can't include Windows. This gives MS a nice heavy club to use to pund OEMs into submission.
Under capitalism, companies can survive easily by filling niches
Under capitalism, a monopolies don't exist.
1) It is, in as as much as he who controls the desktops (clients) controls the servers.
The first step to take is to grow up and stop using terms such as "M$" and "Billy Boy."
As for "from a source inside M$" you better watch out for the libel laws since your "M$ strategy points" are obviously made up by you (infiltrate Slahdot? Give me a break!) At the very least it is truly Anti-MS FUD. Yes: FUD.
If you are really the COO of Linux Systems Group I would stay far, far away from your company since it is obviously run by immature males.
MS does indeed have a monopoly. The issue at the heart of the matter ISN'T whether or not Joe Schmo can write an OS or application. The issue is whether or not Joe Schmo can enter the market.
Think about it: MS has
Joe Schmo stands NO CHANCE of being able to successfully market his software, whether it be an OS or application. Sure, you can begin to, but as soon as it appears on MS's radar, you will be embraced-and-extended, or squashed.
MS has the most popular OS. They used this to corner the market regarding Office Suites, Internet Browsers, Server OS's, and others. Not to mention the attempted takeovers of the ISP market (MSN, anyone?), news media (MSNBC, anyone?), and high-end graphics market (Chrome Effects, Farenheit, SGI deals, anyone?), to name just a few.
Predatory business practices, when used by a company large enough to throw substantial weight behind them == monopoly.
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
Take this crap to alt.fan.billgates where it belongs...
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
Actually, This is Chewbacca. :-)
----
Open mind, insert foot.
It's all in the angle. Microsoft will probably be emphasizing "IBM and Linux," "Red Hat, Caldera, Turbo, et al and Linux," "Oracle and Linux," etc. The point being, they will play up the corporate connections and downplay the "freeness" of the GNU project and Linux. "See, there are other big players in the OS marketplace and they are offering an alternative to Windows, therefore, no monopoly exists."
slashdot broke my sig
- BAO (Bruce Artwick Organization): Developer of Microsoft Flight Simulator and Flight Shop, a Flight Simulator add-on. Result: Purchased company, canceled U.S. distribution of Flight Shop. Circa 1995.
- Blue Ribbon Soundworks, Ltd. Developer of SuperJam, EasyKeys and other MIDI music products for Amiga, OS/2 and Windows. Result: Purchased company. EasyKeys for OS/2 and Amiga products discontinued soon after. Circa 1995.
- Blue Ribbon Soundworks, Ltd. Developer of SuperJam, EasyKeys and other MIDI music products for Amiga, OS/2 and Windows. Result: Purchased company. EasyKeys for OS/2 and Amiga products discontinued soon after. Circa 1997.
- Softimage 3D graphics applications developer. Result: Purchased company; eventually discontinued development of non-Windows products.
You wanted two? I gave you four. you want more? Check here. Touchy issue here. I agree with what you argue on this in principle, but after dealing with several systems with IE, this seems like more of an excuse. I've used many different Win32 systems in my time, and honestly, I wish I could get rid of the integrated browser and use the regular Explorer from Win95. Saying you can install Netscape and Opera just doesn't cut it anymore. What if I don't want any part of IE? Even to browse local resources? Saving download and installation time for something you do not want is not helpful to the customer in general...no matter how useful it might be to you. You must be really naive if you think the market can handle itself. This has been categorically proven otherwise. No matter how many times I hear people say it, if the market was capable of taking care of itself, then Microsoft would not be a problem now.Put simply, this market is no longer about technical issues it's about marketing prowess and the computer industry is no exception in this respect! (Remember Beta vs VHS?)
Microsoft has near absolute power in this market due to its checkbook, and although Linux is making serious inroads, it is simply not a threat to Microsoft...yet! Linux needs a stable and consistent desktop before it can threaten Microsoft where it makes its money: the home user. Until then, expect the courts to move faster than Linux.
BTW - The government is not stupid in excercising its right (yes, its right) to enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust laws. It's amazing to me how many Microsoft pundits overlook this fact.
- Cliff
An Anonymous Coward was caught preaching the following in response to BOredAtWork: You give Microsoft FAR too much credit here. IBM preloaded Windows on Aptivas because they already had a deal with Microsoft from their PS/2 days. It was simple economics, not a matter of the customer's preferences. I do agree that IBM could have installed OS/2 on those Aptivas if they wanted, but IBM has been quoted as saying that OS/2 was NOT meant for the home market...and that was a mistake on their part. You missed something here. First off, when Dell entered their agreement with Microsoft, StarOffice, Linux weren't on anyone's radar. Microsoft was the only game in town. Secondly, several OEMs would have preferred to install different application suites but were forced to take Office becuase of tying agreements between Windows and other Microsoft offerings (this was going to be in the anti-trust case, but was removed). Microsoft isn't in the business of selling you what you want, hell, there might be some non-Microsoft offerings in there. Instead, they'll sell you what they want you to have even if it means shoving it down your throat! Last I checked, product tying was illegal, and "force feeding" was just damned annoying.
Regarding the IE4 "integration": Well, the appeals court got this one wrong in my opinion (not that mine really matters), but that doesn't make product tying any more legal...and IE4+Win98 is product tying. Period. Why? Because there was already an existing browser market. If someone else who had an OS had integrated a browser, it would be fine, but the market leader (ie the owner of the Desktop Monopoly) does it, then the lawyers start pouncing. Another excuse. What's preventing 3rd party developers from including it in their own distributions? I agree that it makes SENSE to include that DLL as part of an optional system package, but to call it part of the OS? No sir. Two entirely different things. Fact: The user has no choice but to accept IE when they install Windows. The choice to deinstall it doesn't come until later, and even that "deinstallation" isn't done properly. Where do you draw the line? Where Linux has, of course. Each of these products you've mentioned (including EDIT.COM) are applications. Linux doesn't claim that any of its applications are part and parcel of the OS. With Linux and other Operating Systems that bundle, you have the choice at install time whether these optional packages are installed. Not true with IE and most of the stuff that comes with Windows. Added functionality is one thing, but when the people want that added functionality, then it should be incorporated into the standard. "Added functionality" isn't really added functionality until it becomes part of a standard protocol ! Until then, such "added functionality" is only available in the hands of one entity and that is not good for the consumer. Ask yourself then: If Microsoft was so committed to the customer, why haven't they worked with Standardization Committees to get this "added functionality" worked into the standards? Again, "embrace and extend" is only useful for someone trying to watch the bottom line in the easiest way possible. And how is Joe Schmo supposed to fight a multi-billion dollar corporation without some protection of his ideas. Just because you can copy someone's ideas doesn't mean that you should. Clean room implementations of someone else's ideas are fine, but anything else falls short. Microsoft usually gives them an offer they can't refuse: sell out or die. And if they don't sell out, Microsoft will live up to their alternative threat, by any means necessary.
How does this help the perception of a "vital and innovative market"? -- It doesn't. *sigh* -- That sounds as lame as Bill Gates in his DOJ deposition. What do you think it means? it means exactly what I stated above: "destroy by any means necessary". How is this a tinted view of the facts, when in fact, there are several markets out there that are particularly worried about this exact thing! A few markets come to mind: Real Estate and Automobile Sales. You may think that this worry shows a "fundamental anti-Microsoft bias", but this bias only comes from the analysis of past behavior. Anti-Microsoft bias or not (and put plainly, I do have one): If the shoe fits, one should wear it. Absolutely not! However, you seem to think that dislike is the only thing motivated behind this shift against Microsoft. Although it plays a big part, one has to look at why this company is so disliked: It's not that Microsoft is successful, it's how it attained that success! I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The government is perfectly within its rights to enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust laws! That's my justification, and it's also the DOJ's. This industry may be different than most, but its still subject to the rules every other market uses. It's the rules we've been using since the Union was founded, and for the most part, these rules work. Why should the software market be treated differently than any other? Point out to me distinct differences that would invalidate the Sherman Anti-Trust laws or the basic economic laws on which Sherman was founded. Until you can show me such proof, I'll continue to disagree with you. And if Windows is not the economic definition of a Monopoly, then tell me why its stock value is so high? Dispite the growth of Apple and Linux, neither of these issues can approach the fact that Microsoft and Windows have the greatest mindshare in this industry.
And with that mindshare, they can do anything to anyone in the industry that they want to.
- Cliff
Your argument about the new help files being better than the old RTF system is also lacking. The RTF help system worked and in my opinion is just as functional, if not moreso than its newer HTML-based equivalent. So why throw it all out all of that work on the old Help system simply to move to an HTML based system? You gain nothing from such a move.
No, this IE integration solely amounts to Microsoft moving a few critical interface functions into DLLs used by IE, and then claiming that IE was part of the OS, simply because DLLs that it used were also part of the OS. The move to HTML help files was just something to lend credance to this, and not some design issue to improve Windows in any way! I don't see it that way. If this were true, then a lot more companies would be coming under fire from the Government for not paying their "tax". Your argument here, is entirely too cynical to take seriously. Umm...how about lack of interest from the general public? How about lack of funds for the Internet of 3-4 years ago to upgrade itself in anticipation of the needs of millions of millions of users? Do not kid yourself, the reason why the internet didn't become popular until it did was because it was not ready to handle it ! All of the standards that make up the Internet as we know it today were in place years before it became truly usable by the public. More often than not, the public was afraid of the Internet. It wasn't until the Web gained popularity that people saw that the Internet could be fun and
I'll say it again, I think the Government is right in bringing Microsoft to court! If Microsoft is innocent of the charges that have been laid against it, then they can prove this to the public at large.
So far, they've done a relatively poor job.
- Cliff
You are evading the point. The matter is not whether companies have been force or not to pre-install Windows; the problem is that customers are forced to buy it, whether or not they want it.
Oh, yeah, and nobody's forced to buy from Dell. Or from any other OEM who sells its computers with MS Office. People WANT these products. Is it illegal for MS to sell them what they want?
No. What is illegal is to actively seek to force customers to buy their product, whether they want it or not.
You keep missing the point. Anti-trust laws were not written to defend smaller companies from big ones like Microsoft, but rather to protect the customers and general public from the effects of a privately-held monopoly.
For example, what if I'm willing to pay the high price for the bugfix-release Windows 98, but don't want IE 4.0? You might counter that IE is free. I don't care. It takes up space in my disk, and uses RAM on my machine even if I'm not using it, therefore making my machine go slower if I choose to use another product with the same functionality like Netscape.
Your answer would seem to be: `No one forces you to use Microsoft. Go get another OS.' But what if my business already depends on Windows-based software? What other OS can I get? Since I have no other choice than Windows, Microsoft gets to force me to install software I don't want. Therefore, they cut down my choice as a customer.
Besides, MS isn't the only company to ship multiple products in one package. Every linux distributor I know of ships a whole bunch of software with the Linux kernel. But, I'll stick with MS. Should Microsoft be harassed because they bundled freecell? That was, and certainly still is, not an integral part of the OS. The same is true with EDIT.COM or Notepad. Where do you draw the line?
There is nothing wrong with bundling software. As I have said before, the problem is imposing software on people.
I'm not forced to install most of the packages in Debian, for example. In fact, Debian even allows me to remove software essential for my system to function.
In the same vein, I don't have to install Freecell if I dont't want, and I can remove EDIT.COM or Notepad easily. Anyway, I consider a text editor to be an essential system facility (editing config files to make something work, reading READMEs, etc.), so they are full justified in pre-installing it.
The problem is that IE 5.0, being a Web Browser, is by no means an essential system facility, but rather a huge application program that pre-loads large parts of it at bootup, and you can't remove from your OS, no matter whether you have or not a use for a web browser.
And switching their help system over to HTML might justify including a browser, but not forcing it on people the way they do (replacing the file manager).
What you call Bastardized standards some call added functionality. "Embrace and extend" is a clever strategy to gain business. By making their version do more than the published standard (Java for one) they give their customers more for their money than if MS had limited themselves to the standard. When is it illegal to make your software better than the other guy's? When you're microsoft.
Strawman. No one has contested Microsoft's freedom to add features to anything. What was contested was their breach of contract with Sun. Microsoft licensed Java under certain terms, among which says that they must implement the whole Java specification, and that they may not make any changes to the core Java class library. They did not implement the whole thing, and modified the core classes, and thus engaged in illegal practices. They have always been free to add all the functionality they like, as long as they abide by the contract they signed by their own free will.
I know you mention this in your next paragraph. I don't understand why you raise this point (that Microsoft is being disallowed from adding features to Java), since you refute it yourself.
Now the exaggeration and FUD begins. Anytime Microsoft goes into a business venture, it's automatically an attempted takeover of the industry?
If they leverage their OS dominance, which is a basic infrastructure for all these business fields, to force their products on customers, or to make competitors products less profitable (for example, by API changes and such) it is. Note I'm not claiming anything about any case in particular; I'm just setting some criteria.
But I say that's what's happened with IE 4.0. MS forces people to install and run their browser (it is your GUI desktop, for God's sake). Explorer gets partially pre-loaded into RAM at bootup, meaning that it will load faster, and that it will take up RAM that another browser could use to run faster.
With that in mind, my real, basic question is this: Should an action be illegal because you don't like it? That seems to be the idea behind this posting.
I don't think so. I think BOredAtWOrk (Welcome back, dude! Long time no see!) raised valid points.
Windows and Office are a far cry from becoming the economic definition of a monopoly. Witness the revival of Apple and the booming growth of Linux to see that. Hmmm... Doesn't MS have a stake in Apple? And, show me a computer vendor that pre-installs GNU/Linux, and I'll show you dozens (hundreds? thousands?) that force you to buy Windows.
---
This is not about the vendors. This is about customer choice.
Anyway, let's put what you just said this way: Microsoft is making it unprofitable for most computer vendors not to give their customers choice on what OS to get on their machines.
Hey, what could be wrong with allowing vendors to sell any OS their customers want? Most of them will go with Windows, anyway. But no. Vendors are pressured into not giving their customers any choice.
Oh yeah, that's just horrible for the consumer. Here is a free browser. You can still use other browsers if you want to, but heres a free one. Yeah, that should be put a stop to.
Oh god. I hate repeating myself. Here goes: Bundling is not a problem. Microsoft may bundle all the products they like. What they can't do is force a product into a customer. And this is what they are doing with IE 4.0. They are forcing people to install and run it (it's the GUI desktop, for christ's sake). Large parts of it get pre-loaded at system bootup, so it takes advantage of the OS to load up faster, something competing browsers can't do. And if you run say, Netscape, then you have two browsers in memory, and only use one. That affects system performance.
---
My, oh my. Not only a forced (not with a gun, hehe) literal reading, but you drag Bill Gates into this as my victim. Poor little Billy, this commie jerk attacks him! (see next quote for the reason I mention communism)
[regrading anti-trust laws] Bullshit. They were written by government officials who wanted to gain power over the American people. There is no good reason to have anti-trust laws, they are just one step closer to communism...but anyways...
Now commie baiting, and bald assertion. Could you care to back this up?
WRONG...I.E. 4.0 or 5.0 is split into several parts, and several of those parts are used by OTHER APPLICATIONS (such as the layout engine and the html parser). Notepad is NOT re-used by other applications and therefore, you can remove it without trouble.
You're thinking of IE as program code. I'm thinking of it as a product, as a web browser. If MS wants to provide HTML parsing libraries with Windows they are welcome to do so. They are NOT welcome force a web browser application into customers, by artifically fitting it as a the file manager and claiming it's an unremovable essential system facility.
If you REALLY think that it is becoming a problem, then migrate your business over to Linux.
You make this sound trivial. Have _you_ ever tried to migrate a business to Linux? How much does it take: 5 minutes, a day maybe?
The "if you don't like it, don't use it" answer is REALLY lame. When people have put time and money into setting up a system to make their work easier and better, it's not practical, or easy, to easily switch over to a different system.
Microsoft has no right to exploit the fact that people can't easily switch to bury their competitors (and I don't mean Billy shoveling dirt, thank you) and force the acceptance of one product on the acceptance of other.
---
Yeah, right, go straight ahead. See if anyone notices.
If Microsoft releases a shoddy imitation of my product, then that gives me PERFECT advertizement material where I can point out how my product is better.
Sure? While MS uses its far superior advertising budget to point out "how their product is better"?
If my product is good enough, it will survive the FUD and any vaporware attempts that Microsoft makes.
Ha. Wouldn't we all wish. Remember OS/2?
---
me:
"My, oh my. Not only a forced (not with a gun, hehe) literal reading, but you drag Bill Gates into this as my victim. Poor little Billy, this commie jerk attacks him! (see next quote for the reason I mention communism)"
you:
Well, that is the only way you are FORCED to buy something. Otherwise, it's YOUR decision.
Well, you continue to insist in twisting the meaning of words to suit your argument. Here are some of the aceptions of the verb force from Webster's:
Yes, some aceptions of the word force imply violence. But not the ones I'm using.
I would thus urge you to end this dumb word game. I assume, from your posts, that you are a competent english speaker; if I'm having to force you with dictionary evidence to accept a sense of the verb force every competent english speaker knows, you are obviously being dense on purpose.
There are many ways of coercing someone into buying some particular product, be them psychological, economic, or by force. One is to make the alternatives far less visible, by making it unprofitable for the distributors to offer. This is one of the things Microsoft has been accused of doing by their exclusive arrangements.
you:
Simple. It's MY business I have the right to sell MY product MY way any way I want to, because it is MY PRODUCT. I have the right to HIRE who I want. I have the right to FIRE who I want. It's simple ownership of property. If I don't have these rights, then I don't own my business, and although it may not be full communism, it sure the hell isn't capitalism anymore, because I can't do what I want with my capital!
Your problem is with the government and the current state of law, then. The system the US has right now, instead of the unfettered capitalism you would like, is in place because the persons who constructed it believed such unfetterd capitalism was not good for the general welfare of their society. If you want to argue that they are wrong, and that either (a) the general welfare of society is not as important as having unfettered capitalism, or (b) that unfettered capitalism is better for the general welfare of society than the current system, and have good arguments for that, then I urge you to go ahead and put them in view. Because no one is going to accept your defense of Microsoft unless they share your political views.
For the record, I'm an anti-capitalist (and you'd better not call me a communist), and I don't believe you should have the rights you claim above.
you:
No, what's REALLY lame is not taking responsibility for YOUR decisions. If you set up your system around Windows products, you must have had reasons behind it. If those reasons are no longer being met, then it's time to design a different system. The companies that have realized this have come MUCH further then the ones that have stuck with their old system.
You are assuming that the person that chooses the system is the one that ends up taking the responsibility. In the real world, people change jobs. Needs change. Someone installed some system a decade ago, and is no longer around. And, say, you suddenly have a need to use the information in those old systems with others of a different type, which are not under your control (say, a customer's).
This is a situation in which you never decided on the system in question. Yet you are being responsible for it. You cannot change over to a different system, because you need to be compatible with another system that tries its best to be compatible with no other. Therefore that incompatible, closed system you would like to avoid is the one that best meets your needs. But this is not because it is a superior system that gives customers what they would like; it is a system artificially designed to lock you into it, and make switching as difficult as possible. This is what Microsoft wants by decommoditizing standards.
you:
If you say that you don't want to switch from Windows to Linux because it's too much trouble, then fine...that's YOUR decision. And no one is saying that you HAVE to upgrade from Windows 95 to Windows 98!
Ha. Try to buy a new computer with Windows 95 preinstalled. Or try to run a new software package that requires Win98 (actually, I don't know if there are any yet, but if there aren't, I'm sure there'll be Win2K exclusive programs) on your Win95 machine. You will be told "You have to upgrade to Win98 (or Win2K)." No one will `force' you (like, with a gun) to do so, but as people around you switch, more because of propaganda than reason, you will be more and more needy to do so.
you:
There's a reason that I'm calling this thread "defeatism"..everyone is saying "This is too hard" "Microsoft should make it easy..." Of course, I bet you haven't TRIED to convert people to Linux or TRIED marketing your own product...you just ASSUME that it is impossible.
Please kindly point out where such a thing has been said. And I mean a textual quote which can unequivocably interpreted to mean that any of the participants in this thread has said that Microsoft should make it easy to switch, or switching to Linux is too hard.
For the record, what I claim is the following:
---
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't use IE for linux if such a thing existed. I think very few, if any people would. It would look bad for MS to make software that nobody used.
But Microsoft's use of Linux in their defense is really irrelavent. The question is anti-competitive practices. Monopoly or not, they are not justified in engaging in anti-competitive practices. Are they saying that just because Linux is out there that they are now now justified in co-opting open standards? In "de-commoditizing" Internet standards? I think not.
--
--
The early bird catches the worm. The worm that sleeps late lives to see another day.
Posted by lnc:
MS is allowed, by law, to have a monopoly in a particular business. Companies with monopolies have to play be different rules because the anti-trust laws prohibit the use of one monopoly to create another. The crux of the governments case is that MS used its monopoly position in operating systems to create a monopoly position in Internet browsers. This behaviour is illegal if MS is found to have a monopoly in operating systems. Historically a company is considered to have a monopoly when they own more than 40% market share. Yes, that low, but it is the historical standard. MS meets this standard in spades. I've asked this question before. What if Dell, Compaq, Gateway and others start to ship Linux? How will that change things? Why would it change what consumers want? By the way, you can purchase a really nice Linux compatible system from eMachines for $399 at outpost.com. Here's a direct link
Posted by drk_angel:
Granted, I don't know nearly as much about Linux as I would like, what I do know is that it's about computing, not about making money.
You pose an interesting idea, I just think we should remember where our priorities should lie.
>Good *grammer* is very useful in debates.
Umm...
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I see. They are going to use the: "We are not a monopoly because there are these thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of programmers and users out there that hate us so much that will not only LEARN Unix, they'll write their own!"
Hahahahaha!
That's like claiming your cat is not a predator because in eats grass once in a while.
"This is Chewbaka..."
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
"Professor Fisher's testimony would give readers of his 1983 book whiplash," Microsoft's statement continued, referring to Fisher's text entitled "Folded, Spindled, and Mutilated: Economic Analysis and U.S. vs. IBM" (with John J. McGowan and Joen E. Greenwood; 1983). Fisher acted as chief economic witness for IBM when it was subject of its own lengthy DOJ antitrust investigation, according to Microsoft's rebuttal.
In Fisher's book, he claims that "monopoly profits are earned through high prices and inferior products,"(emphasis mine) says Microsoft in its statement.
Throughout the antitrust trial proceeding thus far, Microsoft has attempted to show that it has not jacked up operating system or application product prices, despite the fact that it has added numerous features and functionality to its offerings.
Duh, that's exactly what ms has done. Granted that they haven't radically jacked up prices, but they sure haven't cut them down either - except of course when they do so to wipe out a competing product. They have a monopoly on the desktop - they can charge what they want, and they can continue to make inferior products. So, where's the inconsistency here?
1999 prediction: If ms gets off with less than an order to dismantle itself, folks in this country - USA - will be in for even more marketdroid newspeak than ever before. So, just repeat after me
white is black
yes is no
war is peace
innovation is microsoft
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
Sorry, but there was a recent article - I'll find it and post it here - that pointed out the the research division at ms has not produced anything of significant value in 7-10 years and millions in operating budgets - with the notable exception of Bob. Ms does not innovate - it's just not built in to the corporate culture. They acquire and immitate, not innovate.
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
Now how do you see Microsoft as less of a monopoly now than before?
^ ~
I agree Linux is making inroads (to a whopping 2.5%) but Microsoft is still a monopoly. Remember, a monopoly isn't defined as 100% market share.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
ABORTED effort:
Close all that you have.
>Engaged OEMs in closed contracts that
/vertical/ monopoly. Now for instance Taco Bell does not sell Coke, that is a verticle monopoly, but wait lookee here, Taco Bell is owned by Pepsi. Hmmmmm......
~
>expressidly forbit installation of non-MS OS's.
>Hell, IBM can't even preinstall THEIR OWN
>OS (OS2/Warp).
There are plenty of places where you can buy a system without Windows installed, just not from the big VARs. So what? No one forced these vendors to sign these contracts,
Vroommmmm, did you miss that one. You suffer from the 747 effect. The point is not that Dell or anyone accepted these contracts, its that Microsoft felt the obligation to make those contracts exclusive. This is enforcing a
>Consumed smaller startup companies simply to
>squash NON-MS technologies.
I don't belive that is even being addressed in the DOJ lawsuit. Besides I can't think of any companies that have been purchased and their technology abandoned by MS. Put into products, yes, but not abandoned. Got any examples?
Um, vroom again. If they're purchased they are not `Non-MS' technologies anymore are they.
Oh yeah, that's just horrible for the consumer. Here is a free browser.
A low flying plane that one was. Wasn't it free even before it was made a part of the OS? Maybe free wasn't enough. Maybe that is the case. And you can't argue that incorporating that buggy mess into the OS (the UI actually) was good for the comsumer. It creates more overhead, and crashes a lot more.
and to close...
No one is forcing you to use any of MS's products or standards.
I don't. Not even at work. Does Microsoft let you use another OS at work?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
ABORTED effort:
Close all that you have.
I'm a lucky one.
~ ^~
BTW, in a success story, mentioning Linux twice in two nights has gotten me two job opportunities. Woohoo!
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~
ABORTED effort:
Close all that you have.
Boy, if you like Anonymous Coward posting try using a name. Its a much better adrenaline rush. And if you can pick a fight with Ivan your really in fat city, that man wears out the best of us ten or twenty at a time.
and...
Oh, now I get it. You are one of those small minded people whose world view is shaken if someone actually disagrees with you.
Then they must be part of some big conspiracy. Well, that probably is a comforting way to look at things if you can't face reality.
Sticks and stones. I never said anything about a conspiracy.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
ABORTED effort:
Close all that you have.
Microsoft will be using the Chewbacca defense. "Ladies and gentleman of the 'Supposed' jury, this is Chewbacca."
"Chewbacca's a wookie, he's from the planet keskik.
"Now why would a wookie who is 8 feet tall choose to live on the planet endor with a bunch of ewoks who are only 2 feet tall?
"That does not make sense!
"So you are probably asking yourself why am I , a highly paid attourney for a major software company talking about a wookie in from of a federal judge in a restrait of trade case? That does not make sense.
"So why would a simple homegrown sweet os like Windows, which is even now being threated by the big bad linux be simultaneously attacked by the government when it is clear that the Linux os holds the true monopoly. It does not make sense
"So , remember, ladies and gentlemen of the 'supposed' jury, if Chewbacca lives with penguins on endor you must aquit.
"Look at the happy monkey!
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
Is the title of this link supposed to be parody on "Dreaded wookie defense?". Sure seems such to me.
I like this:
4.Infiltrate the newsgroups (SlashDot et. al) with inflammatory comments making more rift in the Linux camps and then spread more FUD on fragmented the so-called "Linux-Community" is.
Heh. The Linux community does quite well at this by themselves. It started with Slackware and the guy was going to *shock* charge for a CD. And it's extended itself right on into the GNOME/KDE wars, and everything else...
Given that journalists are more eager to be the first than to be the best informed, they get priority coverage in the media. This strategy has proved to be very succesful as a pre-emptive strike against the impact the actual testimony may have on the public.
Some considerations wrt the allegation of Microsoft having a monopoly with Windows:
And while I'm at it, a blatant plug: if you are interested in a regular analysis of Microsoft's position and actions, you may be interested in visiting billwatch.net
-cjr
In Fisher's book, he claims that "monopoly profits are earned through high prices and inferior products," says Microsoft in its statement.
Hmmmm, $100 for an OS that doesn't work 98% of teh time. Sounds about right to me.
"God is REAL
The fact that the only OS other than MS's NT gaining market share is one that is developed outside the market framework is supposed to support MS's argument? That is, to develop an OS regardless of the fact that there were more apps available for a competitor needed developers who were free from the pressure to sell, does not contradict the statement that with more apps you can increase your market and become a monopoly in a market where different companies are trying to make money from the same market.
A monopoly does not have to have barriers to entry to exist. A monopoly, however has to have most, if not all of some segment of a market. A monopoly can naturally exist- and in the eyes of the law, it's fine to have one, so long as you don't use the position to maintain itself or to establish other monopolies in other market segments. On the desktop, you have to admit, they have something like 80-99% of the market (or so they say)- this constitutes a monopoly over the desktop operating systems market. They used this position to wedge their way into the server, applications, and internet market segments- and that is what the DOJ trial is all about.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
It's more like the "Wookie" defense, and that won't work with that argument.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
And we can only hope that they call witnesses from RedHat, Caldera, et al. Not what I'd call friendly witnesses ;-)
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
Have you tried to get one? Dell requires a minimum purchase of something like 10 machines to have them install Linux on them. As for Compaq, I don't know but I'd wager it's something similar. Since most people don't want 10 computers, this isn't really an option.
The problem is MS's licensing. Dell,Compaq, et al. don't save any money (and thus don't pass any savings to the consumer) by *not* installing MS's products because they license per model. So they would have to have a completely seperate line of computers for Linux, and although that would be sweet, they probably don't think there's enough of a market for that yet.
I would think Compaq would be under greater pressure to support Linux because it can run on both PCs and Alphas, which they own. They could use Linux to leverage their PC market for the Alpha (e.g. people [including IT personel and excutives] get used to Linux on their PC at home, businesses can feel more comfortable getting Linux-installed Alphas at work). Of course, they would be cutting into Digitial UNIX, but eventually their gonna have to drop that anyways (and VMS? yechh). Linux may represent Compaq's best means of keeping Alpha alive.
Sure, NT runs on Alpha too, but it's not 64-bit native, it's not as well supported (app-wise) and I doubt MS is planning on continuing their support of Alpha at all (unless they really get pissed at Intel).
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
You should probably talk to Linux International about ads for Linux in general, or the various vendors such as RedHat about their flavors of Linux. As for me, I'd love to see a television commercial or even an indepth (unbiased) report on Linux.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
Heh heh heh thought that'd get your attention.
I would think that under antitrust law (although I am no lawyer), the only relevant issues are: (1) is Microsoft a monopoly (not were they; not will they be) and (2) did Microsoft engage (and are they engaging) in acts deemed illegal under antitrust law? The fact that Linux is an alternative operating system does not weigh in on this at all, because Microsoft, to date, still has a monopoly on the personal computer operating system market, because they have (an estimated) 90+% market share in that area.
And besides, is Microsoft going to argue that the only means to undermine their monopoly is to produce a product pro bono? With lawyers like that, who needs the DOJ?
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
"Bobbitt" comes to mind. ;-)
ElpDragon.
....there are countless numbers of people who use its direct descendant, the Talking Shifty-Eyed Paper Clip. Oh, wait! That's because they forced it on the hapless Word user! BAHAHAHAHAHA!
OK, Elp, get a hold of yourself...
ElpDragon
Thought I'd try to clarify a few things... hope it helps.
We aren't asking that the Windows source code be released as you seem to imply with your reference to the open-source movement. We are merely asking that the full and complete programmers' interface be available to everyone -- which is documentation, not code.
For a simplistic example, take a car. The owner's manual describes how to take care of all aspects of the car. The owner's manual to the Microsoft Car, however, happens to omit the section on changing the oil, which means you have to take your car to a Microsoft Certified Service Station when your oil is running low.
Sure, in a real car, you can guess. Look for the dipstick, look for the screw-on cap that smells like oil when you take it off. But for a programmer, there's no dipstick, there's no cap, and there's no oil smell... unless you have the source code, or unless you're very, VERY good and have several weeks of time on your hands. So you have to rely on the documentation... which is, in this case, missing a good number of things.
Given the full documentation of the Win32 API, though, it is easily possible to write an operating system which runs all Windows programs. I suspect this is why Microsoft keeps large pieces of it secret.
ElpDragon.
i pisses me off to no end when i hear the MS apologists rant on about "government interference" when in fact MS entire business is based on copyright, which is massive government interference.
__
Scott Draves
The fact is there has been a big anti-microsoft backlash for quite a while and if you
think that the govt and courts are going to effect real change faster than the market could
by companies moving to alternative platforms, I think you are mistaken.
The government actually won't go faster, and even if it loses this case the government should maintain its scrutiny of Microsoft if only to keep them honest. I can't really say if MS actions violate anti-trust laws. But, I think scrutiny of MS needs to be maintained because at the very least they are right on the hairy edge of violating anti-trust laws. Probably the most difficult part is that most of MS clout comes from a perceived threat rather than overt threats or actions. Therefore, it is very hard to prove that they violated any laws. But, by keeping its eye on Microsoft the government nullifies the perceived threat and any overt threat from MS against a company that doesn't do what MS wants will quickly get MS spanked. This will allow the market to decide what lives and dies not MS.
Well, let's consider the high cost of Windows 98.
Things Win98 has that Win95 does not...
1) FAT32 = $10
2) Bug Fixes = Free (cost of media)
3) Minor performance enhancements = $10
4) More Drivers = $10 for the service, and the few that don't come with my hardware.
5) IE4 = Free (I use Netscape anyways.)
So, total value for Win98 $30 plus the cost of media. Wait, I have Win95 OSR2. Therefore, Win98 is worth $20 to me.
So, Win98 upgrade costs $90 for at best $30 worth of new software. Well, I would say a 300% mark up demonstrates overcharging for something that is basically a minor upgrade.
On another note Win95's internal designation in Windows 4.0. Win98's is Windows 4.1. I recall spending $10 for the DOS 6.0 to 6.22 upgrade. So, if you figure inflation and increased complexity $30 for a single point upgrade is about right.
They have high prices for an inferior product namely Windows 98. What do you get with Windows98 that you don't get with Win95?
Bug Fixes? They should be free to download.
Drivers? Not worth much especially when hardware vendors supply most of them.
FAT32? About the only thing worht getting, and it comes with Win95 OSR2.
Improved Performance? This is marginal at best, not worth much to me.
Integrated IE4? What if I don't like IE4, it is also free to download. Therefore should not add anythign to the price.
Therefore, tell me how you justify spending $90 for an upgrade that gives you next to nothing of real value over the previous version.
The real cure is probably not government regulation, but the cooling of MS practices caused by goverment scrutiny. What would MS have done had IBM or Oracle had supported Linux without the DOJ case?
What utilities? And, why would I want them?
I haven't heard of any "features" of Win98 that would make it worth $90. So, please list these all important utilities that make it worth $90.
Flame bait, I know.... but anyway:
MS have a monopoly in a certain sector of the desktop OS market. To do an awful lot of things you have no option but to run Windows, either because of software avalibility or because explaining the difference to new users is just too much effort. While the various Unix variants are very nice, for a random person buying a PC for home use the market is such that they don't really make sense.
MS isn't really doing anything visibly exciting with core products like 9[58] or Office - I haven't noticed anything much new that I wanted to use in Word or Excel since 6.0. They still release new versions every once in a while, but that's not the same thing. Merely providing more features doesn't sound like innovation to me - it's still a Widget, even if it is Mk.4 Widget with knobs on.
With regard to Apple, they had some big management problems. They moved to PowerPC and IIRC did some stuff with the OS, but didn't manage to bring the users along with them (high initial costs and all that).
hardware (PC systems) from vendors that have a per-processor license with Microsfot. In other words from vendors that refuse to give a discount for the system without MS Windoze preinstalled.
Let's also support honest Linux hardware vendors - i.e. those that sell ONLY Linux preinstalled.
Disclaimer: I have a temptation to start such a business - the timing seems to be right.
Vassili Leonov
Because you are not a hacker, don't know linux better than "hey, this computer is faster, cheaper, and more reliable than that one" and you just want a computer to write a paper, read email, etc. with. Either Linux is available preinstalled (with X, netscape, office suite, etc), or you buy a computer with Windows installed because you don't know how to install Linux.
I'm not gonna get into this flame war, but I'd like to comment on how funny that post is. I'm not all that concerned with M$ and it's legal floundering (I know we're gonna win, one way or another) but I do like to see good, honestly funny things on slashdot.
;)
Fantastic Post!
~nameless
ps : i do hate microsoft, don't get me wrong
OK guys. As the COO of the fastest growing technology form in Western New York, let me clue you in to the corporate mindset.
... roughly $300-500K
Linux needs to develop relationships with the media, have an organized marketing structure (to keep M$ on their toes, and in a reactionary stance as opposed to a proactive one) as it stands right the Linux community is forced to be reactionary because they are merely RECEIVING press...not going out and GETTING press like Microsoft is.
Remember, reality is that which is perceived and a majority of consumers get their impressions of Linux from places like PC-Magazine, ZD-NET etc. Where the journalists are as a majority absolutely clueless and have never touched Linux in their lives but know they have a deadline to meet or they lose their jobs. Linux is the perfect fallguy because there is no organized marketing efforts right now. Nothing that is rated as a corporate level initiative that is...
To recap one more time...
How does M$ plan to derail Linux:
M$'s strategies are going to be close to the following. (from a source inside of M$)
1.The closer to the Win2000 release the more FUD we should spread about open source.
2.Spread FUD about how it is unstable, hard to use and is not in use in large numbers in corporate America.
3.Spread the perception of ease-of use of Windows
4.Infiltrate the newsgroups (SlashDot et. al) with inflammatory comments making more rift in the Linux camps and then spread more FUD on fragmented the so-called "Linux-Community" is.
5.More than embrace & extend, we go after the companies that are known to use or embrace Linux and offer them large incentives to switch to Windows.
6.Use the news sources and media outlets at our disposal to conduct mock tests against Linux and other competing operating systems, first by making windows lose to the competing OSs then after the debut of Windows-2000 conduct tests by "Independent Media Outlets" to let the world know how much our product has improved and outdone the competition. This "Impartial Validation" methods wins consumers over.
Increase marketing pressures on current media partners and increase our financial stake in those companies.
Does Microsoft have a Monopoly...I think so but I'm not an attorney. I do belive that they are a desperate company that talks out of both sides of their collective mouth. Mr Ed Muth, an official Microsoft Marketing Spokesman says that "Big budgets and big capital are needed" to write quality software.
His boss, Billy Gates says "Our hold on the OS market is tenous....there could be a college kid who is out there right now who is writing an operating system that could take it all way from us..."
So which is it?
I'm no Bill Gates but I am however a guy who's company has a bigger advertising budget for this year than I think anyone has ever spent on Linux in an organized fashion
TV, Radio, Billboards, Speeches, Tradeshows, etc.
Instead of griping about M$ get proactive and do something about it.
I'm open to ideas on an organized marketing effort on behalf of Linux and am willing to back it up with resources and money.
Cheers and happy coding,
Nick
nick@linuxsystemsgroup.com
(before I begin we are doing a new website and the shell is there right now...sorry about that ;-))
Let me reiterate...
My goals with Linux may or may not be inline with many in the community. My history as many know was that I was a former Win32 Developer and used to work for Microsoft in terms of working contract for Volt Scientific. After losing a 6 month project on my home machine because Windows Self-destructed I vowed I would find an alternative or make one myself. Linux was right there with all the features I had ever wanted in an OS and the communtiy help out much when I was a hapless newby using my Slackware distrobution. I never forget a friends or friends. I worked my butt off to take this company where it is now but I don't want to do it without input from the community. Many eyes and minds see better than one.
I feel that Linux is the best thing going for many platforms and many companies can benefit from it.
Being a former USMC Captain and being stubborn as I am I went pounding doors to companies to find either A) They had no clue what I was talking about or B) They had succumbed to the MS FUD because it was easier than finding the truth.
This can go one of two ways... Linux can stay a fringe OS with numbers around 7-10 Million or with proper exposure (proper meaning positive) it can leap to the stratusphere and take a life of it's own. Microsoft is so trapped in the morass of kludge they have built that I dare say that Windows-2000 will be accepted as a godsend the first month it is out (because of the strong "consumer" feedback (read M$ marketing arm) and the press ala ZD-Net et. al ) that essentially rides in M$'s back pocket.
All I am looking for is the ideas of the community from whence it is derived to develop a marketing ideas and constructs to allow for the proliferation of Linux without the M$ FUD carrying on in the media. People like the Mr. Muths of the world or the Jesse Bersts (stick finger in the wind and see which way the gust comes from) style of journalism. I have a problem with the hit & run style of journalism currently practice by many so -called experts in the media. If the media can know that it has a steady group to call on for the real scoop they may be more inclined to do so.
We must as well actively go out and GET publicity in a positive manner. (I do probably 7 public speaking engagements a month)
The price of freedom is eternal vigilace.
Cheers,
Nick
LSG
Sorry for any spelling errors but I have to type fast as my wife will kill me if I don't get off this computer right no...
Name those features. (Not the fact that their exclusive agreements gave them a head start on their drivers etc.) But a genuine feature?
..."Usability, discoverable, intuitive, enterprise ready, etc." Merely buzz words with NO substance....
NT and win95 are still single user OSs and they want us to put that on our networks? HA!
Can we say a Kludge over DOS?
Please... I've studies that prove that Linux can increase productivity by 36% (GTE: 1998)
NEXT!
By the way... I really have a strong suspicion your a plant from M$ knowing how they operate.
Or you just have never used Linux how it should be used. I get tired of the Microsofties who repeat the
Here is the challenge...(with the exception of driver related issues) name one thing you can do on M$ platform that I can't do better on Linux?
(I don't mean playing games either)
Cheers,
Nick
LSG
A consistant easy to use interface it here. It's called either GNOME or KDE your CHOICE (stress CHOICE HERE) As a developer using the GTK Libs. and a former employee of Microsoft (via Volt Scientific as a developer) I can tell you the GTK/GDK libs are more flexible, robust and easier to program the kludging through the Win32 API.
:" Some college kid could write an OS and put us out of business tomorrow"
Your obviously not a developer.
"The support of tons of hardware manufacturers"
Again this is the driver issue we're not talking drivers here. I will say this though. Linux runs on more hardware than NT does... so...(by the by the Win32 Plug-&-Play is done incorrectly, one should probe the pci/isa/etc card not the BIOS)
"a huge software library?" Good you have a question mark after it. There is more development software and more Libs to choose from under Linux than Windows HANDS DOWN!
"And I suspect you are gonna argue a lot of the claims with a windows emulator"
You suspected wrong. While I admire the goals of the WINE project I think it is going in the wrong direction. Don't waste time validating Windows or it's applications. As for a Windows Emulator...
Actually I have no need of one. MS-Office is a DOG compared to Star Office 5.0. It has more features, and is far more stable. (again site the GTE Study)
My company made over 5 million last year designing Servers, Workstations and laptops with Linux pre-installed and fully supported (you don't get support from M$ when you buy a machine with Windoze installed) In many cases we replaced windows workstations with Linux running a GNOME desktop with our enhancements on it and tailored per client request. Good luck trying to get that from Microsoft...
The GNOME interface coupled with a good/fast X-Win manager based on CORBA destroys the outdated COM & DCOM based (read modified OLE) structs of the M$ desktop....NEXT
M$ doesn't innovate anything....if you have doubts look at their "technologies" all are merely tweakes of exisiting technologies that are modified to be incompatable with other technologies.
Usablilty....hmm try opening an application fully maximized. Now open another application non-maximized and place it in front of the already open one. Now write to the maximized application while still being able to see the smaller one NOT placing it behind the maximized one.....can't do it huh... Win32 API doesn't allow for more subtle mouse focus/mouse lead pointers and hints.
Now try this...open your office suite, and a browser, and Photoshop and an editor or something.
I open Star Office, Netscape, the GIMP and Emacs and still am at 93% of resources available and I have 64 MB RAM on this machine.
Uptime is now over 143 days....and this is a development machine.
Don't even attempt that on M$. Interesting thing about the NT microkernel. They put the GDI in as part of the kernel but kept the more essential functions as subsidiary aspects..... What a nightmare....
Oh..show me how to administer a disk quota for a user under NT. (doens't have it)
Show me how to set up the Telnet Server on NT(doen't have it)
Under WinNT5.0 Beta 2 management console show me how to administer clusters (not recursions but actual PVM/MPI Clusters).... I can easily do that in LinuxConf (Linux management console)
Show me Under WinNT5.0 Beta 2 management console how to lock down the desktop so a Windows95/98 user can't go to DOS and type a DEL TREE function
(can't do it)
Think this through. 1999 will be the year of Linux. Like it or not.
As I have said before, Mr. Ed Muth says (to paraphrase) "You need big teams, big capital to make good software"
Bill Gates Says (to paraphrase)
SO Which is it?
"But to say MS is uncompetitive and is not innovating, etc. IS JUST WRONG. I praise linux users for their intelligence, but some have not thought this through far enough."
Sounds to me like Microsoft has some rethinking to do.
By the way...
$800 for a basic or C++ compiler PLEASE!
The GNU compiler under libc6 is a 1024 bit lib. M$ is still 16&32 good grief...Linux has been 64 bit on ALPHA since 1995. M$...Not yet....
"May the best company win!"
What? Linux is NOT a company. That's what perplexes M$ so much I guess...
Again, I ask what was it that you could do on the Microsoft SINGLE-USER OS's (ala 95/98/NT) That you can't do on Linux......still don't know....
Cheers,
Nick
LSG
PS: Typing fast please excuse spelling errors on my part...
START MENUS??? sorry but a majority of the M$ "innovations" were ripped off of other OSs.
For example...the Explorer.exe is a modifed version of a Norton Utility which is in return a rip from a Unix Tool..modified etc. but they certainly didn't innovate it.
Internet features???? So M$ invented the internet now... jees what next..??
All marketing blah blah again name an example of a M$ innovation....I havn't seen it yet. DirectX is a joke unto itself please....ever take a look at the DirectAPI drivers for SGI or Linux on the video cards?
Microsoft ASP...modified CGI with yet another proprietary application layer built in further proof that they want to make people use THEIR standards...not those already in existance...their arrogance is beyond belief...
hey scotty, let's be specific here, shall we:
Start menu: see other poster
"Internet features": Oh yeah. Like all the stuff the saw working on the web and said. Hey! Lets throw it in the OS. That sounds more like cut-and-paste than innovation. Hey, when I put a picture of my poodle on my web site by clicking on a button in Last..err..I mean Frontpage, is that an "Internet Feature ( not that they created frontpage itself-they bought it)"? No scooter, it's not innovation, its automation. Been doing that since before billg was born.
"UI Enhancements"? C'mon dude. name one and we'll refute it.
DirectX-hey, when I made a game for the Sega Genesis back in 1990-1991, did I hand do it in assembler? Probably not. I probably compiled the code and used an API. Sheesh. M$, as the sole proprietor of evil..er..I mean the OS, saw that they could extend their hegemony by providing this API. It's nothing new or special. It just makes sense in their "windows everywhere" philosophy.
"there tons,tons,etc..." You tailing off on me boy? you're right, there are tons and tons of air in the world, but we can all see right through it, no?
ps if boredatwork sees this: big fan of the clue stick-good to see you back thwacking away!
"I have not affiliation with MS and would support any other company with similar philosphies"
How about government regimes?
1) Denying the people's right to choose. ( You get to load IE whether you like it or not.) Often found in "totalitarian" and "police" states.
2) Price fixing. Controlling the free market economy by setting the price on a commodity that you are the sole propreitor of. Often seen in "totalitarian" states to force citizens to be totally reliant on the government. Propaganda is often used to make citizens think they the state is the provider of all things necessary for their life, resulting in what is colloquially known as "brainwashing".
"Hard work is payed off nicely"-not when that damn beeper bags you at three in the morning to reboot the server. I'll sleep, thank you.
This is something I have said to people time and time again. If current situations forgives past transgressions, does this mean that in the future, if a person is charged with a crime they did in the past, that being a nice person will allow them to get off? 'Oh...I know he killed all those people, but he hasn't killed anyone for years now, so we shouldn't convict him.'
Breaking the law is breaking the law, nothing you do can change the past.
If there is only one company I don't see how you can call it a market. Eventually Microsoft will fall, but in the meantime it can cause a great deal of pain. If there were no threat of Anti-trust Microsoft would force every hardware vendor to take measures to run Microsoft OS's exclusively. Eventually enough vendors would band together and support something else, but we would have to go through the software equivalent of the US auto industry before Japanese cars became good. Plus Japanese cars could run on the existing roads and gas, an advantage competitors to an unrestricted Microsoft would be unlikely to see.
It all depends on what the government does to remedy this problem. Force Microsoft to offer one price to everyone, allow resellers to modify the version they sell, require FULL COMPLETE and CORRECT specification of every system call, forbid Microsoft from discriminating against vendors who work with the competition, and forbid lawsuits against emulators.
If you really want a pure free market then you can't have copyrights or patents. Utilities, roads and so forth would have to negotiate with each landowner they cross. Digging a well would require the permission of everyone else who owns property over that aquifer. I would be all for it, but it's probably a tad to libertarian for most folks.
As long as I am forbidden from using graph coloring for register allocation, or finding relative primes with intent to perform modulus arithmetic we should at least force people to compete on price and quality.
An Object at rest CANNOT BE STOPPED! -The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight
Look at it this way. Under normal circumstances if you are at an intersection and the light is green you can proceed. However if traffic is heavy and you can make it all the way across, but enter anyway, you will block traffic. The result is grid-lock and just like with monopolies, grid-lock eventually goes away. In the meantime a great deal of grief can be spared by simply not blocking the intersection, or not leveraging a monopoly into other sectors of the economy. Same thing with Microsoft, normally you can offer any deal you damm well please, but when you start impeading others access to the market by leveraging your monopoly you are blocking traffic.
Microsoft got where it is because IBM was ham-strung by the very same laws they are bleating about now. The bad old IBM would have simply built the entire PC in house or acquired the necessary companies. The entire commodity hardware market is a result of those laws. Now the same thing is going to happen for software. Either with the DOJ keeping Microsoft from getting in the way, or we will have to endure the long painful process of sending innovator after innovator into the maw of the borg.
By the way, I don't want the source code to Windows as my keyboard is not protected from vomit. I don't care that Microsoft "steals" ideas and really if they only "stole" more of `em their stuff might not be so repugnant. It's the destruction of anyone not willing to pledge fealty to Lord Bill that I find unacceptable.
An Object at rest CANNOT BE STOPPED! -The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight
You're both right, Linux is a great OS, it has been for quite a while. But don't you find it strange that it gets recognized only when Microsoft is in trouble? The timing seems too good for them...
Why do they put up articles like this? It is like soaking yourself in gasoline, smoking, and then wondering why there are so many flames.
Standards are great, and I am in favor with many things being standardized. But you forget one thing, the standard must be well designed for it to be safe for the users. A problematic trend is standards developed by popular view rather than harsh scientific scrutiny are being chosen. I hope you feel safe driving over a bridge using our current trends of standard setting. Also i'm sure you will be the first one to buy brakes from a company using Microsoft embedded chips.
To sum it up:
Listening to popular view is dumb (case and point) the Black Plague: the people decide cats are evil and cause the plague so they kill the cats who kill the rats who actually cause the plague. Brilliant!
Let us engineers/scientist set the standards not the idiots. (sorry to be blunt)
First, an OS has millions (of dollars or Open Source development hours) in development costs.
Second, to achieve viability, an OS needs millions in development costs for applications written for it.
Third, you need to persuade customers to ditch their millions invested in software, training, and support developed around the OS.
This is why, despite the demonstratable inferiority of DOS, then WinXX, it keeps millions of seats captive.
Netscape didn't write an OS, they wrote an application. Microsoft leveraged Windows to gain market share over netscape. Microsoft's OS *IS* the barrier to entry in the app market, in that they can use the market share of their OS to keep other apps from competing. That alone is a violation of anti-trust laws.
That still leaves to question of barriers and the OS. The fact that others *don't* compete is surely not enough to indicate that they are a monopoly. The remaining question is "has Microsoft prevented other OS's from competing"?
Let's take DRDOS as an example. They created an error message in Windows to make it APPEAR as if DRDOS was not compatible. That seems like a barrier to me.
Linux's biggest barrier to entry has been a lack of supported applications. It may be true that anyone can create and sell an OS, but no one will WANT one if it can't run apps. If Microsoft tried to stop apps from being developed for competing OS's, then they created barriers to entry.
Hello java! The first real threat to Microsoft's OS monopoly, because it would allow developers to create apps that run anywhere. Microsoft created an "improved" version of Java which, incidentally, blunted its cross-platform nature and thus made the OS still important. They did this so that developers would not create apps that run on other machines. Whether their attempt was successful or not is really irrelevant. They did create a barrier to entry in the OS market when they broke java.
In fact, everytime they've "adopted and extended," it has been for the purpose of creating barriers. The entire Halloween memo goes into great detail of their proposals to "compete" with Linux and open source by leveraging the fact many people CURRENTLY use their OS. If they make it expensive to change, they create barriers.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
The Boycott Micro$oft has an ongoing contest for people to suggest things that Microsoft has actually invented. So far, this list includes "Microsoft BOB" and "The Talking Paper Clip".
Microsoft buys, borrows, or steals the innovations of others. (Even their original "cash cow" was bought from someone else.) When this fails to produce the desired results, they will kill the competition by, for instance, integrating the browser into their OS as an "essential feature". Microsoft may also do it with the "embrace and extend" or some of the other things they are trying to do to Linux. Microsoft will even try to quash press reports of their activities.
When the court ordered Microsoft to remove MS Internet Explorer (a name which they misappropriated from someone then eventually bought) from MS Windows, Microsoft broke the OS to do it. During discovery, one of the government's experts provided a way to do it. By the time it came time to demonstrate it in court, Microsoft had changed MS Windows so that it the removal program would no longer work.
But none of this behavior is innovative either. ;-)
I've heard plenty of arguments of people who are both for and against MS but have yet to hear anything that can refute the statements made above. I commend the intelligence and passion of all those who take the chance to stand up for themselves and accuse MS of doing something wrong. Unfortunately I do not know of any accusations that are true.
If u have an intelligible argument, I would like to hear it.
I think the problem in this whole industry is obvious: It's the same problem happening in Washington right now. The people on the inside of the computer industry tend to hate MS much more than the average user does (theres plenty of poles to back me up), just as Congress tends to hate Clinton more than the public does. I think that if the industry had not followed MS's path, we would not have as big an industry as we do today. They appealed to the PUBLIC. Republicans did not and it hurt them in the last election. You people have to get your priorities strait. Who are you serving, the public or other technical people like yourself? I realize that MS may not have the most optimized OS or apps all the time--But it does what most people need it to. If you want some more precise software, then get it. But you can't blame them--they have a vision of simplicity that many others have not been as successful at and in the end thats whats more appealing. So listen to your customers, not your technical friends.
...when stupid people did not have computers.
Anyone too new in computing (ie less than 5 years or so) has no way of knowing exactly what is going on in all of this.
Having watched Microsoft all the way back to 1980, I can tell you that they have NEVER had the users' interests in mind.
I shudder to think what this world would be like today if Microsoft was not CONTROLLING the pace of the evolution of software.
And to all of you "just build a better OS and they will come" gits, go back to Economics Class.
It just isn't possible without critical mass.
The ONLY reason I use an MS OS sometimes (I prefer Linux for all except what I cannot yet do with it) is because I HAVE TO.
And finally, what I find REALLY funny is how the suckers on here and elsewhere are so ready to come to Microsoft's defense and buy yet more of their stock while they get repeatedly jammed in the bum from it all.
Amazes me. It really realy does.
Microsoft, if they REALLY cared, would open their API, or open their source, and make their money offering support. As it stands now, they can literally kick the crap out of any startup they choose... if this is not a barrier to entry, then what is??
Please, THINK about this. HOW can you say this has no effect on the evolution of computing?? -- When any entrapeneur must live in fear of being TOO good that they may be assimilated by Microsoft?
IF computing was simply about money, it would be ideal-- start up a company with a good idea, get bought out by Miscrosoft, get rich. Be happy, get a boat and sail around.
I refuse to believe that the hacker spirit is dead. I refuse to believe that people do not do this for love (and a comfortable living, an HONEST living)... my hopes lie with Linux.
I just PRAY that we can all agree on at least a "Desktop Standard" so that we have a chance. The hackers among us can still have a field day with custom versions, but we must at least allow a standard to emerge if we have ANY chance at all. We MUSt have a standard API to write to, so that developers have something to rally around. I'm NOT saying ONE API, simply a voted "standard".
This way, Linux can be FREE, *and* be viable.
Thanks for letting me share.
--Thom
OK then - you want 3 places that stock Linux.
How about 3 places in the UK that stock Linux?
All South London - Croydon borough.
1. PC World - Caldera, Red Hat and Suse. Sold right next door to the copies of Windows NT and BackOffice - obvious they bundle to power OSes together.
2. Software Warehouse, Red Hat and Caldera.
3. Circuit World. Red Hat along with bundles of other non Wintel and non PC software.
It's not really lack of availability that we're talking about it's lack of oportunity - PC Vendors dont want to stick their necks out and offer non Windows systems because they have been afraid.
I do not completely understand the last paragraph - however as a mathematican I am familiar with graph coloring and relative primes. Could someone point me to some literature which explains what kind of algorithms cannot be used, and why?
How 'bout a link to a $400 box that does NOT come with Win98 and M$[rarely]Works preinstalled?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Seriously though, the mindset that good marketing can make up for bad technology is dangerously obsolete in the age of the Internet. Free trial downloads means anyone can instantly evaluate all competing software based on merit alone. Even Micro$oft's billions can't squelch the voice of dissent on the internet (although astroturf campaigns may be somehat effective -- M$ can afford to pay A LOT of people to post.) It may be that sooner than you think, your marketing budget won't mean a thing, unless you can deliver software as good as or better than your competitors. The Internet changes everything -- you either learn to play by the new rules or go home!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
You know, maybe you could take a few hundred out of that $500K advertising budget, and maybe hire a web developer or two... just a thought... ;-)
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney