Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft names KOffice and AbiWord as competitors
Case Roole writes "Reading trial transcripts can be great fun. Here is Microsoft's senior vice-president of platforms and applications Paul Maritz on the kspread component of KOffice: "this is quite a sophisticated spreadsheet". Maritz also stated: "[AbiSource] started developing ... a very high-quality word processor for the Linux environment."" .
Search on KOFFICE and ABI in the above transcript.
In a related story, sh writes "Microsoft demonstrates
why OpenLinux is "powerful and easy to use". Check out the
article and video!
(but you'll need MS Media Player - hmm...) Free advertising for a rival's
product to prove competition - what will they resort to next? "
Isn't it obvious that these products *ARENT* competition for M$, since they are under the GPL, and free to distribute?
It's a clear indication that M$ *IS* a monopoly, when the only thing that can break its strangehold is stuff that is FREE!
sheesh.
OpenLinux, from ClosedCaldera. www.closedCaldera.com ?
www.openlinux.com ?
Microsoft are getting *real* desperate! Slackware would be understandable
MS would probably have paid less in fines if they had pled guilty than what all this is costing them in lawyers
Well, if Micro$oft(TM) considers that Alpha software is competion to them, that just goes to show you how bad thwir software really is.
Click here Here's a direct link to the video, for those having trouble with the silly Javascript Window on MSNBC's site.
whoops, I meant to say that they DID leak the halloween documents on purpose.
no. this is a common misconception, though.
the only type of protection that is weakened through failure to go out there and enforce it, is the trademark.
copyrights don't have to be enforced to remain strong.
All this talk from Microsoft, and their
media friends about linux and linux products
is good for now, it is helping to spread the word
about linux. However, be careful...don't believe
that all the favorable press is going to continue.
As soon as the case is over, Microsoft will make the phone calls to the editors and suddenly,
you will read how linux has taken a turn for
the worse. Microsoft is a monopoly and does
use that monopoly to control the media. Right now
it is in Microsoft's best interests to have a
linux revolution, but all that will end when the
DOJ case is over!!!
Actually, if the software doesn't have all it's intended featurees yet, it's not even alpha. Alpha testing is early testing once the software is pretty much fully functional. I would in no way say that something like KOffice is close to even being alpha software yet.
of course its competition ...
Lets say I open a lemonade stand. I sell a glass of lemonade for $1. Then a guy across the street also opens a lemonade stand, but he gives it away for free. Regardless of the fact he is giving it away for free, he is competing with me.
Linux people can't have it both ways, either linux is a player or its a toy for the geeks. If you consider it a toy for the geeks that will never reach mass appeal then by all means, whine your heart out. I for one consider it a player, and am glad MS sees it as competition.
If you really feel this way then _send_ those comments to the DOJ. Let _them_ know how you feel.
I can't get netshow work correctly. Is it possible to convert this fuck*** M$ video in MPEG or something like that ?
Personally, I don't see contradiction. MS is a monopoly from the past several years till now, and will remain a monopoly in the next few years. Then this awesome Linux in gonna catch up in various aspect, gain support from many corners and is gonna destroy MS's monopoly. I don't think MS is going to die though.
If I have anything to worry, that will be MS using its monopoly power and ugly tactics to prevent this from happening. Also, the big mass of end-users who can't shake off MS habits after many years of usage. Linux programmers will then have to innovate things that are a generation ahead of MS to solve this problem.
> of course its competition ...
Not really. Not on the desktop, at least. Not
yet, anyway.
In the server market? Maybe. But even then:
Linux's market share is a fraction of NT's.
And your analogy is not good. What MS is accused
of doing is selling lemonade, the guy across the
street starts selling ice, MS starts giving away
ice to put the guy across the street out of
business so it can have that market as well.
To make its free ice more attractive, it could
sell its lemonade in custom cups that have an
opening too small for its competitor's ice. And
it could push the advantage of integrating the
ice with the lemonade, rather than the ice being
added afterwards.
It could further reinforce the integrated ice
advantage by discreetly filling integrated-ice
orders with somewhat better-chilled lemonade.
Thus, buyers of lemonade-with-integrated-ice
would enjoy an enhanced lemonade experience.
No-ice orders could be over-filled (which would
of course be touted as an advantage to the
non-integrated-ice customer), thus requiring the
customer to remove some lemonade before having
room for after-market ice. The no-ice lemonade
being less-chilled than the integrated-ice
version would serve to lessen the customer's
experience in two ways: having to drink
less-than-optimally-chilled lemonade (or discard
something for which he paid [sound familiar?])
and the resulting accelerated dilution by the
competitor's ice due to faster melting.
I sense a possible market opportunity here!
Sigh...
/. pretty dim bulbs indeed
Typical MS-advocate mis-direction. You must
think the readers of
if you think that argument's going to win any
converts.
Microsoft is not being prosecuted (some feel
"persecuted" would be more accurate) for being a
monopoly, MS stands accused of using monopoly
power to dominate other markets. There's a *big*
difference. The former is not illegal. The
latter is.
Secondly: MS is arguably a monopoly *today*. The
more rational amongst the Linux community freely
admit that Linux is presently little threat to
MS. And likely will remain little threat for
some time--if ever. They have stated so
publicly.
So, did someone back at the M$ main office nuke an NT machine and install a Linux distribution to try these so called competitive office packages? Granted KOffice and Abi Word have great potential, but are they really devloped to the point that MS Office is? This just goes to show how shitty M$ code is when they name free (in both senses of the word for the most part:)software as compitition for a product they've spent millions to develope...
Kind of make you think don't it?
"I cann't give you a brain, but I can give you a degree..." Wizard of Oz. Oh, but wait...
Expect to see netshow pulled by MS.
Thousands of programmers and a free OS where necessary to begin tickeling M$, if you don't call this monopoly I wonder what it could be !.
Antitrust law is meant to ensure that viable competition exists between *commercial* entities. Such competition is necessary for Capitalism to work well, and Capitalism is concerned with commercial entities, volunteerism being outside its purview. While there are commercial entities, such as Red Hat, in the OSS world, the bulk of the work is based on volunteerism. Therefore, we are not dealing with commercial Capitalist enterprises. Linux does not compete with Windows because it is not a commercial product (Red Hat is selling service, convenience, and add-ons) and therefore does not factor into the Adam Smith derived theory of competition that underlies antitrust law.
I hate to admit it, but netshow sounds (haven't tried the video) a LOT better than Realaudio. I believe they use the mp3 format with just a proprietary header on the stream. Realaudio completely sucks compared to mp3's. Granted, the Linux player doesn't work for me and I had to reboot to Win95 to hear it. :-)
I can't believe they actually named WebTV as a competing technology. So what, now Micro$oft is competing with itself???
If Media Player ever does become availble, anyone who downloads it should be shot with shit and hung for stinking.
:)
Just my 2 cents, for whatever its worth (2 cents the last time I checked)
Microsoft is behaving like a spoiled child in regards to Open or Free Software. I wish the lawyers would bring the matter up about people having difficulties getting rebates on the EULA.
A pox on microsoft's business practicies. (but not on their software, which has good points and bad points)
Did you forget about the market share element here? Linux, Be, and Mac COMBINED still can't touch Darth Gates.
"He's a fool. A wartime hero fool."
Antitrust law is meant to ensure that viable competition exists between *commercial* entities. Such competition
is necessary for Capitalism to work well, and Capitalism is concerned with commercial entities, volunteerism
being outside its purview. While there are commercial entities, such as Red Hat, in the OSS world, the bulk of
the work is based on volunteerism. Therefore, we are not dealing with commercial Capitalist enterprises. Linux
does not compete with Windows because it is not a commercial product (Red Hat is selling service, convenience,
and add-ons) and therefore does not factor into the Adam Smith-derived theory of competition that underlies
antitrust law.
Yeah really. If they want to use anything to demonstrate competition, it should have been StarOffice (which reads M$ docs so perfectly it is an easy drop in replacement).
Not to mention star office runs on Linux, OS/2, and also windoze.
Are they really this clueless? Let's hope they remain that way.
Let's see -- Southwestern Bell has dropped Office in some locations because they are also dropping NT and have found Applix to be great. Applix seems to be a budding favorite with accountants (the spreadsheet) in Texas. Applix is shipping for lots platforms right now (Win32, Linux on x86 and Alpha with Linux SPARC and ppc coming within the next quarter, a Java version of the suite, HP-UX, SCO, Solaris, AIX), and works the same way on all of them, making work in a heterogenous environment far easier. Where is Office for those platforms? I know several people using the spreadsheet (which is far, far better than Excel) as front ends to accounting programs, Informix and postgres back ends, and to keep track of basic accounting and business stuff, Words works very well and produces rtf files that anyone can read (unlike Office), the presentation stuff works like Framemaker (not as well, but until Adobe gets it's collective head out of itys collective ass, its is good enough), it rarely crashes (twice in two years), and it is easy for Windows users to get used to. I have built it inot CDE for lots of people and I know people who have done similar deals with WM and fvwm, the Applix people are easy to deal with, and it works on every kind of distro out there. I would tend to feel (yes, I am biased -- I love the spreadsheet) that Applix is more serious competition than anything in KDE's line up right now (maybe later, but not right now). Perhaps Microsoft only wanted to compare products that weren't ready yet?
Okay, this is just a wild idea, but here goes...
Many home users won't use Linux because they don't want to invest themselves in learning UNIX or a new GUI. The inertia of Windows will keep that platform dominant for some time.
However, Microsoft might be able to derail the commercial effects of the Linux revolution by doing the following:
1. Port the Windows desktop to run on top of Linux.
This gives users a "friendly and familiar" interface to Linux and others Unices. It makes Windows users feel comfortable with Linux and makes the platform much more mainstream. Microsoft administration tools and basic NT services (like SMB) work exactly the same from a user interface standpoint as Windows NT.
The advantage is that Unix-like systems are set to work exactly the same for a Windows user. The driving force behind Windows are:
* Applications
* Familiarity of consumers to the system.
2. Port the "Killer Apps" to run on Linux
Windows on the desktop is just a driving force for Office. Port Office to Linux and corporate America will follow.
3. Use their extensive network to make developers write Linux apps.
Make APIs as similar as possible between the two platforms. Microsoft still makes money because developers are using their tools and proprietary libraries to develop Linux apps.
You get the picture...
The operating system is no longer important, in terms of business. If Microsoft commoditizes each operating system and instead focuses on capturing the user and developer base, they could build continue to make money long after Windows dies a hideous death.
This might give me nightmares tonight...
Should it?
...did anyone notice that M$ keeps pointing to software developped by a bunch of loosely-connected hackers working part-time on still immature (though very promising) products instead of commercial entities?
Why isn't anyone asking "and what about those COMMERCIAL companies with FULL-TIME, PAID employees, how much market-share do *THEY* have?" ? Is M$ trying to distract The World (TM) from the fact that the "real" competition, the one with money, can't hold its own, can't keep marketshare vis-a-vis M$ ???
Someone at the DOJ and anywhere else that make its voice heard should push the question further... Methinks M$ is digging its own grave here (oiow: they are creating one hell of a weak spot in their defense and don't know it!).
Bruno Majewski
bruno@pubnix.qc.ca
Ever tried using the < and > symbols? I suggest you read up on HTML before you try posting and then writing up stupid-sonding rants about it.
Ever tried using the < and > symbols? I suggest you read up on HTML before you try posting and then writing up stupid-sonding rants about it.
Way I understood the lgpl, if you dynamically linked your program with an lgpl'd library, then you weren't including any portions of the library in your binary and the end user was free to dynamically link a new version of the library at run time.
Of course, if this is a static binary, then MS are in the wrong. But I somehow doubt they would be that stupid.
Sid.
How strange!
Comparing an unfinished featureless word processor like AbiWord with MSWord?
I don't know who is dumber, Microsoft for suggesting it, or Slashdotter's for defending it.
On Wednesday, I have to present a quick presentation to an investor. I used Office2000(beta) to do it very easily. It was
effortless to drop in spreadsheets, graphs, db queries, and organizational charts.
I can't do this with AbiSource products, and KOffice only does part of this.
Plus, Office2000 can save this presentation in 100% pure HTML4.0 + CSS + XML with no ActiveX required for viewing.
Both the free software community and the commercial competitors have a long way to go befor they can compete with that.
Linux users thing products compete if they merely exist. I'm telling you that Lotus could *GIVE AWAY* SmartSuite with Source, and people still wouldn't use it.
It's not as simple as being free and "out there" It has to be marketed, productized, and distributed in a way that draws people.
A program binary or source code alone is NOT a product and does not "compete"
That's um ... a quantum leap in revision number
I'm not an expert in the licensing field, but this doesnt sound good.
Is everyone aware of that? Specially the people releasing under the GPL?
Can anyone reassure me?
I couldn't have said it better.
Linux as a (server) OS is one thing, but open sourced office suites are another.
Despite all the advocacy Linux users know very well about the deficiencies of their system. And this kind of 'self-criticism' is what makes up much of its success.
Linux will need this year to lay out the basics for a desktop system.
Linux is technically (at least) equivalent to the Redmond counterparts.
Open Source Office apps are far behind the commercial ones.
Micro$oft is obviously very desperate trying to find a competitor. I hope governemnt understands that there is simply no competition here because:
1. The software is free. What kind of competition is it if you have to give your products away for free?
2. The software is in early alpha. It's nowhere near being complete and obviously doesn't have nearly as many features as M$ software. (I'm referring to KOffice) The mere fact that it exists does not mean there's a competition. I can write a "word processor" over night does that mean I'm competing with Micro$oft?
3. Those who contribute to open-source projects have no financial incentive to do so. It is a hobby, no more.
I think that summarizes most main points. Comments are welcome.
Interesting to dissect it though... looks like it's using Motif, but with some custom widgets that create a monstrous hybrid of Windows 95/Netscape 3.0 X11 look. It'll be interesting to see if the next version has been updated to look like Netscape 4. Running strings on the (statically linked) binary is quite interesting, particularly:
User-Agent: NetShow (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i586)
@(#) The Linux C library 5.2.18
Hmmm... but wait a minute, where's the un-linked .o file so that we can re-link it against a newer version of the library at our option? Could it be that Microsoft hasn't read the LGPL? Or is this a sign of the total contempt they have for anyone's license but their own?
Interestingly, it has several xanim-alike commandline options. I don't know what the story with that is, whether it contains xanim code.
A poor pre-alpha quality and still very buggy office suite that promises much in future releases is competition for MS Office? Well, I think we may well have to concede that at least it's potentially a fair comparison to MS office, at least on product quality and hype :)
I wonder though, how they passed up Applix, Star Office, and Siag Office. look so many competitors waiting for MS's attention!
But alas, the problem is that Microsoft's approach has the opertunity of proving the govt case. With all these (real) competitors, why does office hold over 90% of the office suite market? And why, if Windows is not a closed and largely proprietary monopoly environment, does MS office hold over 95% of office suite market share on windows (the monopoly platform) alone, even when considering real competitive products had existed for considerable time (such as Smart Suite, etc)? And with the office suite market on the windows platform alone being so large (and presumably "open" to fair competition) why has not a single new competitor entered this specific market in years?
I am still expecting the appearance of the 'integrated word processing and spreadsheet feature' of Windows in some future release. Very probably shorty if there is a 'win' in the current case....
This is the final straw. KOffice, Abi word? These products haven't even been released in anything but developers' beta versions, with about half the features working so far. The next line of defense may as well be competition from Klingons and Feringi.
The judge should have thrown out this line of defense out of hand. The fact that he has allowed this to continue indicates that things are going well for MS.
I just returned from a Sunday dinner with my parents. My mother, age 70, has been struggling with bloated Windows office software which won't properly import and export common file formats.
They use MS Word where she does volunter work, but she uses Lotus. Well, which version of Word do they use? No way to find out on a Sunday afternoon. One version is incompatible with the next, forcing competitors like Lotus to constantly play catch up and decipher proprietary file formats.
This is not good advertising for Linux, because nobody will remember what MS says about KOffice or Abi Word. They will only remember that MS proved that it is not a monopoly and has not unfairly disadvantaged competitors by making its operating system indistinguishable from its office suite.
I am observing first hand how an "average" Windows user struggles with the many inconveniences and inefficiencies Windows imposes. User friendly? No way. To work around these obstacles my mom is having to teach herself how to do basic things with files in spite of the gimmicks MS and its competitors contrive mostly to keep consumers dependent on doing things in a controlled environment like rats in a laboratory.
Average Windows users are NOT happy with this.
If Linux can't do better with Gnome and Kde I sure could with a team of very mediocre programmers. Users don't want bloated office suites with Linux, embedded objects, and MS-style cut/copy/paste commands for file operations. They want simple, easy to use apps that can be customized without necessarily using a text editor to edit configuration files. Consumers want simple file formats that don't change with every version of apps that create them, and libraries that do not break apps they are already using when they upgrade.
Linux is following the path of MS. Listen to me Gnome and Kde. Simplify. Do not keep adding bloat and require more and more libraries so every possible graphics format can be used for backgrounds and icons. Users don't care about that. Forget about object models and use common protocols on desktop and networks that apps can use to communicate with each other without having to take the kitchen sink along to do simple drag and drop or data transfer.
We don't want or need MS-style pseudo-object oriented systems like COM. Next will be a Windows style registry for package managers and applications to use, all in the name of user-friendliness, making it impossible for users to do simple things in their own way independent of these subsystems. For example, installing or uninstalling programs independent of package managers by simply deleting the files.
Unix has its own style of layered components to build on and model from. Please adhere to this simple tradition and build on it. You cannot beat MS at its own game of adding "features" and "gimmicks" but you can beat MS by being true to yourselves.
Disenchanted
A. WELL, THEY CAUSE US TO REALLY HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, INSURE THAT WE CONTINUE TO INNOVATE AND OFFER VALUE TO OUR CUSTOMERS.
"You know, innovate, offer value" wink, wink. I predict totally new and incompatible file formats for every future MS Office product.
The argument would run somewhat like this: "According to MS, its only competitors are free software products. Thus, MS has a (near) monopoly on proprietary software products."
BTW I am not necessarily endorsing this argument. I think it's a bit feeble as it stands there (MS also mentions proprieatary products as competition).
---
AbiWord is high-quality? Funny, it segfaulted on me immediately the first time I ran it...
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
naming abiword and KOffice competitors is funny at best. They are nowhere near completion. What are they thinking??? I think they are trying to do something really tricky: they give some examples of competition to the DOJ to prove they have no monopoly and at the same token they choose something so obviously inferior that the general public thinks "Oh, so this is the best free software can do? Well thank you MS for giving us good software and for innovating."
- illuminaut, arbiter elegantiarum.
A. WELL, THEY CAUSE US TO REALLY HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, INSURE THAT WE CONTINUE TO INNOVATE AND OFFER VALUE TO OUR CUSTOMERS.
In other words, that's their excuse for all their rapidly-changing proprietary shit.
Seems like a lot of you really need to make up your minds. A great deal of the time you're saying, "Linux is so awesome, it's gonna destroy Microsoft, d00d!" Then by the time the next thread comes along, you're up in arms, screaming, "How dare Micro$uck say that they're not a monopoly! They have no competition!" Please make up your minds already. If Microsoft is really a monopoly, then you must believe that Linux will be relegated to irrelevancy unless the government wins this anti-trust suit. Given the odds that anything meaningful will happen to Microsoft as a result of this suit -- very small -- you guys really do have a lot to be worried about.
Microsoft does have a competition -- other companies that produce commercial operating systems and applications. And Microsoft uses illegal business practices to hurt that competition, and almost everything else in sight.
In addition to commercial operating systems there are noncommercial ones, that even if they had 99.9% of total installations, still have no relevance to the case because Microsoft will still have a monopoly in the commercial operating systems market. The facts that Microsoft doesn't like Linux, or that Linux, being developed noncommercially, can hurt Microsoft, are quite irrelevant, too, because Microsoft still doesn't do any noncommercial OS development, and noncommercial OS development is supported by large number of individuals, not companies that compete with Microsoft.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
it's really not the up to that revision number.
I am not a lover of Word, indeed I could not even stomach opening version 6.0 - despite it seemed to be an improvement over version 2.0c that I detested. However, being a consultant working on primarily Windows/DOS applications and many times on the client's site I had to use the software they preferred, i.e. located on their machines.
The point is the version numbers mean nothing, since they jumped from version 2.0c to 6.0. About the same time a number of the RDBMS backends jumped to numbered versions not justified by their development history.
Returning to Word, in some respects Word 97 that came installed on my machine seemed to be a major improvement. Indeed, I began to use it thinking they finally got their act together. Nonetheless, I was soon enlightened when it crashed in the help when I was trying to determine how to do some non-trivial operation, just as 2.0c had done to me years ago! I suspect, that may be a MS feature, i.e. crash when the application cannot perform the operation to hide its major flaws.
Another event, again using Word 97 drove me up a wall where I was screaming at my machine like a maniac and approaching the point where I might have put my fist through my 19" Hitachi monitor screen. All because, that stupid paper clip (that I had shut down) would not let me use a "Save As" without warning me of the dire consequences of losing formatting information by going to text! I only wanted to save it in Win 97 format. Simple option in WordPro, but not when the built in "Wisdom" is at work. So much so, that the HELP cannot be canceled - they expect a lockstep response that is appropriate for the most inexperienced users.
I pulled myself away, because I was afraid what this crazy man might do. On reflection, I could see that somehow they expected me to Save, for some convoluted reasoning - whereas only text could be an option for modifying a MS format. I look forward to using Linux WordPrefect and putting files in any format I choose to please whomever I am exchanging files.
You give MS too much credit, backoff!
* The applied ONLY to the last sentence!
Even plain text is taking out the unsupported "" and in the footnote "* The '' ..."
...
Just in case that too is automatically edited out I used a joking version of HTML, where in the last proper sentence of the note I set "jokeoff" and the footnote just used: *The "joke"
What's happening? I could have sworn that I have seen "ranton", "/rantoff" HTML's, but the system hates angle brackets, even separated with or without text. Hey Rob, given how good this is - how do the "first posts" and other stupidities get through?"
Hope that makes it throught!
Who needs the Open Source Initiative? Microsoft is the perfect marketing department for the free software community. Maybe they'll pay for some magazine ads to prove their competitors have enough money to advertise in magazines.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Posted by sweeheng:
IMHO, the URL is too long and Slashdot's comments-handling program inserted a CR/LF between the "&" and "com". Bug? In Slashdot?!! Tsk, tsk.
Try it again, but this time manually remove the blank space in "& com".
Posted by Bill, the Galactic Hero:
Until I can read & write PowerPoint 97 files, I'm
stuck using MS Office. And I've seen with StarOffice and Applix that while they can read these files quite well, they don't save them. They'll do ANYTHING else, but never this.
Now I can't imagine that saving the file is any more difficult than reading it in the first place. More likely, you need permission from MS to be able to use their file format.
So while StarOffice and Applix may have money to license the file format, they'll never be granted permission. On the other hand, KDE and Abi will never ask for permission, but if they can't afford to license the format, they're stuck anyway.
It's a nice little lock on the office-suites market. It's also why Maritz's argument (that there's competition in the office-suite market) is a complete red herring.
Despite whatever predjudices you may have, Slashdot readers are not a homogeneous group. It is therefore entirely possible that the people saying (in your words), ""Linux is so awesome, it's gonna destroy Microsoft, d00d!" are maybe not the same people as the ones who are saying (in your words)"How dare Micro$uck say that they're not a monopoly! They have no competition!"
We are not a bunch of sheep who follow a party line, and the great thing about OSS is that unlike in the MS world, we dont have to be in order to work together. Opinions run the wide spectrum from the libertarian ESR to the neo-socialist RMS, and yet still stuff gets done anyway. Technical issues don't give a rip what someone's political and economic opinions are and that's the way it should be.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Well, here's proof that even obvious brain-farts will probably resonate with someone who will claim to have heard the beautiful music of truth.
Stop and think, for a second, about how many people frequent this site. Now ask yourself (and give an honest answer) "If I read two comments that seem to be at odds, does it mean that the Slashdot Clan(tm) is guilty of hypocrisy, or could it mean that they were written by different individuals with different viewpoints?"
A properly calibrated brain will respond that the opinions stem from individuals, and that you can't claim to have found hypocrisy unless the conflicting viewpoints come from the same source...and that using the nebulous concept of the Slashdot Clan(tm) as the single common source is fallacious.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Who am I to argue with a statistic that is accurate to a 10th of a percent? :-/
Regarding how things seem to you, occam's razor guides us to a more simple explaination for your observations. Accept the hypothesis that people gravitate towards the threads in which they can bitch, and avoid those with which they take no exception. (This is actually a mere restatement of your own alt.flame comparison.) If that were the tendency, one would observe the same high degree of concurrence. Moreover, this hypothesis does not require us to leap to the conclusion that the same individuals are behind the contradictory statements.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Hm... funny thing that I don't see your name in the bug database, or even a bug similar to what you describe. As I look through the development list archives, I don't see a single comment from you. Now, could you explain which version was giving you this problem, and which GTK library you had when you compiled it?
I nearly got booted out of the last career fair for using the L word and now they're talking not just L**** but Abiword as acceptable language around employers?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
2 thoughts:
(a) There are a zillion people on this site. They aren't clones of each other. Therefore, you will see conflicting opinions.
(b) These are not necessarily exclusive. Note that the statement "Linux is going to destroy Microsoft" is in the future tense, while "Microsoft has no competition" is in the present tense. It is entirely possible to think that Linux will destroy Microsoft's stranglehold someday, while still thinking that Microsoft still has a stranglehold now. I think Linux won't really be in competition with Microsoft's stuff for at least 6 months, maybe even 2 years.
We need better PnP support--isapnp doesn't even work on newer motherboards..we need a 'desktop environment' (GNUstep, Gnome, KDE)..we need someone to straighten out the godawful video driver system (X..SVGALib..FBCon..KGI)..we need Debian to get apt right instead of cloning dselect into X (yuck)..we need RedHat to write a decent package system for X..we need all the distros to brush up their installation scripts)..and we need even more games to be written for Linux. I think that's about it, and I can see most of it (except maybe the video driver mess) being dealt with in under a year.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
True, but notice that it seems the only real competition has to be free anymore. Everything else is being pushed out. I think that says something.
A completely different item is that Maritz estimates the threat of fast downloads over the cable. He thinks that cable companies will have a "strong influence over what software people choose to download onto their computers". To the court Maritz tells that Microsoft is still thinking out what technology is needed to respond to this new challenge. Thus Maritz conveniently ignores to mention that Microsoft is a major investor in cable companies: $500 million in British NTL, $300 million agreed to sink into UPC, $1 billion in ComCast, $1 billion USWest, 10% of RoadRunner, $50 million joint venture with QualComm - that is now rumored to be about to drop its e-mail client, cross-agreement with TCI to have this cable company push Windows CE.
Well, combined with Maritz' statement that:
Well, this sure looks as if Microsoft is countering the "threat" of downloads over the cable in a way that Linux will never be able to: they buy up the cable companies.
-cjr
I can't correctly articulate why, but I don't think that Microsoft pointing to open source products as competitors is a valid defence. Maybe it's this:
If they are the wealthiest corporation in the world, how is it possible that their only competition is a bunch of rogue hackers who give away the code they write as a hobby, yet there is nothing wrong in the industry.
Maybe someone can articulate this better.
> but didn't word jump from version 2 to version 6? That makes 5 revisions I think.
Was there any reasoning given for their strange version numbering?
--
Exactly! I was about to make the same point along with another scenario:
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
These are ALPHA projects! Granted they seem to be progressing faster than Word is, but Word has 8 revisions headstart! That's EIGHT revisons! KOffice may be useful in a year, or as good as Office in a few years... but right now there's no competition here.
Word for Windows jumped from version 2 to version 6 to match the DOS and Mac versions. If you include the pre-Windows versions, then there really have been 8 major versions.
LOL. You ARE kidding, right? Who, exactly, is competing with MS, here? Who? A bunch of hobbyists, doing this for fun, spending money and time on it and getting nothing back besides a thank you?
So, if I write some software, even if it's just for me and a friend, I'm competing with Microsoft? Especially if they make something remotely similar?
Gimme a break.
That's all we have here, just on a bigger scale. When the customers have to make their own alternative, I don't think that can be seen as anything but a lockin and a move of last resort. It virtually PROVES a monopoly.
Fair warning: put on asbestos attire now.
Ten buck says you wear a suit and tie at work. Sit behind a desk. Worry about profit margins all day. Either that, or you are paid by MS to plant "opinions" like this. Let's clue you in... if your customers or potential customers have so many problems with your products that they have to build their own, they are not competing with your business. You may lose sales, but that is YOUR problem. Your loss of profit does not constitute competition. All that means is your company makes crappy stuff. The people building Free Software are gaining nothing except a usable product, and, more importantly, the freedom to fix and extend the software for their own needs.
Even in light of this, MS still manages to garner HUGE profits. So it's not even a noticable economic loss. So, there's not competition there.
Companies like Red Hat are not selling software, they are selling the service of collecting all these user's hard work and packaging it for convenience. They also provide support. You are just as free to refuse the service and download the product without charge. They do this not to gain market share, but because the people that made it (the users) specify that is the way it will be. An arguement of competition still falls apart here.
Then, as the poster above me pointed out, MS has the desktop marketshare monopoly. I can't get the software to do what I need to do on Linux. This is all because of the MS marketshare issue. The requirements for that software is Windows. The other software package I need requires, uh, Windows. I've had to pay MS 2 times for Windows 95. They sent the floppies instead of the CD (THEY screwed up... the fax specified CD.) They charged me another $20 for the CD. Had to have it to run the software I needed, so I paid. I could have gotten by with the floppies, but since Windows vomits all over itself every few months, a CD is MUCH nicer for the frequent re-installs, I paid to fix MS's screw up. No choice. No competition.
Your arguement comes down to saying the users are getting something usable that isn't MS, so that constitutes competition. That is closer to calling the American Revolution "competition" with the English monarchy. That looks pretty stupid from where I sit.
A better analogy would be a supermarket selling their own brand of juices. Joe, who made his own lemonade from his own trees, pours his neighbor a glass. They chat about how they don't like the taste of the supermarket lemonade. He asks the neighbor if it's good, and how he could make it better. They improve the recipe, and soon, the whole neighborhood is producing it's own lemonade (which they share with anyone walking down the street.)
The supermarket then gets sued by a small corner store. The corner store was making some pretty good orange juice, but were put out of business when the supermarket told food services (caterers, etc...) that anyone buying orange juice from the corner market would be charged more for any food bought at the larger store. They offered to give them free orange juice (which they just started making,) or even pay them, as long as they only bought from the supermarket. They always gave away orange juice to the regular customers. Sometimes, they would have the baggers put a bottle of orange juice in the cart (gratis, of course,) even when the customer didn't want it.
The corner market, of course, could not afford to do that, even though they sold orange juice first, and most people liked it. They lost most orange juice sales, and alot of food sales, too.
On a side note, the corner market also decided to share the recipe to it's orange juice, because the owner (living on the same street as Joe) saw what happened when the guy shared his lemonade recipe.
The supermarket then declares they are doing nothing wrong because on Joe's street, the people make their own lemonade, and it's good.
It's a great idea. I used to do that (esp with Win3.x) but, I just can't keep my hands off these kernels (oh, ok, and network games. I admit it.) The windows partitions keep shrinking and shrinking and... :)
It's about 2/3s of the way down. Just do a search for "StarOffice". Mr. Maritz even talks about how many platforms it runs on, and how close to MS Office it looks and feels. Makes me wonder if MS has been looking for a new company to kil^H^H^Hinvest in.
There was a lot of damaging content in those memos, too. Maybe even we have forgotten how much, what with the amount of emphasis there's been on the "existence of competition" part.
There was the part about "FUD tactics", which I guess doesn't do much in court since it indicates dirty, but not necessarily illegal, tricks, but it still made for bad PR.
More important, I thought, was the talk of "commoditizing" and "decommoditizing" of operating systems, applications, and protocols. As I recall, it practically acknowledged the attempts to compromise the cross-platform compatibility of Java and more than hinted at intentions to do the same with HTTP, etc. It outlined in simple terms the reasoning behind this: that if they could prevent various platforms from interoperating, people would continue to be forced to choose which platform to work with, rather than being able to work with all, and they would continue to choose the dominant one. The facts that they believe that they have the influence to break these standards by pushing their "embraced and extended" versions, and that, when forced to choose, people will choose them, indicates that they have monopoly power. I can hardly imagine what would be clearer evidence of attempting to preserve this power than these attempts to prevent compatibility.
I don't think the DOJ made as much of this as they could have, but then there are a lot of points to make and they had to choose the most compelling. Still, I'm not so sure Microsoft came out ahead as a net result of the Halloween documents, so if they did leak them intentionally, I'd say it was a mistake.
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
The Linux C Library is under the LGPL - anyone want to email FSF with this little tidbit?
Why not publish under the GPL? Seriously, if a company is going to abuse the GPL, it will happily abuse any license you put your code under. Furthermore, if you do go to court, the GPL was written with the help of a lawyer, while your license probably wasn't, meaning your license is much more likely to be found invalid or meingingless.
It's there in the transcript!
is there a way to load that asf video in linux without resorting to loading netshow on linux?
/etc/passwd
I don't trust m$ binaries
strings netshow | grep
- MbM
- MbM
It's not a contradition - we're talking about then, now and a possible later. You're argument sounds alot like MS's (which is alright cause now in a very twilight zone way MS's arguments sound like ours.) The best bit's in the best of the second article (I can't watch the video) - Microsoft spokesman Mark Murray touted the argument outside the courtroom. "The government's entire case is based on a snapshot of the industry that no longer exists," he said. Thanks Barry - so umm... I shot your wife right - but I'm not shooting her now So that's okay right? Besides, all sort of people are making advancements in medical science and my mouth peice^W^Wexpert witness says we'll be able to bring her back to life in a few years. And that's MS's defence - it's laughable.
... with eskimo chains i tatto my brain all the way...
Unless in the meanwhile the press "see the light" and switch to using Linux rather than Windows internally. If the editor and journalists happen to be running Lyx (or some other Tex frontend) rather than an MS wordprocessor to compose their copy......
Was it not Alchin and Sherrif Notingham himself that said all Linux people are are Robin Hood and his Merry Band (i.e. just hobbiests) One side of their mouth they say..."Linux is the invention of one person." The next week it's "Linux is the creation of a vast army of programmers."
/. I agree 100% Microsoft can't have it both ways.
/. readers know the truth as do many IT managers out there...does M$ really think they will try Linux and then go back to the enless upgrade cycle of M$?? Not likely...
WHICH IS IT?
Either Linux is a "feature rich and sophisticated operating system" or it's a "hobbiest OS"
I agree....Microsoft can't have it both ways....
All the manipulation in the media they are doing right now is going to backfire....
for one simple reason.....
You can't fool all of the people...all of the time. (although they sure would like to)
Are IS managers and the like really going to believe the ZD-Nets and Jesse Berst and his ilk of the hit-and-run style of journalism with no credability after the trial and Microsoft suddenly says..."Well we were competing Linux against NT4.0 not against Windows2000....Windows2000 is so much better (and then they will use meaningless buzzwords like "feature-rich", "discoverable", "interface-enrichment" et. al)
So to the previous poster on
Let's see.... I can put Linux on a floppy disk as a mini kernel...I can put QNX on a floppy disk as a minikernel.... M$?? for Windows2000 better get at least 400 floppies....
Clue on to this M$... In 3 weeks is the kick off of a national advertising campaign for a major reseller featuring Linux....Once the cat is out of the bag there is much difficulty in putting it back....
Clue 2 for M$ Operating Systems ARE a commodity. Get used to it as your products are nothing special... ask any real economist and they will say the same thing...
As for ZD-Net....they lost credibility a long time ago with their Stick-the-finger-in-the-wind and see which way the bandwagon is blowing (or what M$ says should be printed)
I could go on but why? A majority of
Cheers,
Nick
LSG
PS: Too many donuts and coffee this morning
Obviously this person doesn't understand the rules of debate, logic and rhetoric. typical of a M$ user...I'm on the side of the big bully becuase I have no personality of my own.....
Cheers,
Nick
LSG
Thank you.
Zontar
(somewhere in tenn.)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
>Seems like a lot of you really need to make up your minds. A great deal of the time you're
>saying, "Linux is so awesome, it's gonna destroy Microsoft, d00d!" Then by the time the next thread
>comes along, you're up in arms, screaming, "How dare Micro$uck say that they're not a monopoly!
>They have no competition!"
The word monopoly means more than having practically an entire market to oneself: it also includes a history of systematically destroying all competition by unfair use of its majority market share. As a result, the only OS that is gaining market share against Microsoft's own OS's is one created by a band of programmers, most of whom do it without pay or monetary compensation. (And it might be correct to say that all of those who are paid to code would continue to do so if they weren't paid -- they would end up writing less Linux code, however.)
And it says something for Microsoft's aggressive stance against all perceived competitors that only a product that is distributed for a token amount (although a number of people are betting that they can make money from supporting this software).
And it's probably fair to say that most of the people in the Linux community are surprised to see this software fair so well against such a big corporation. Surprised enough that more than a few will post stuff like ``Linux is so awesome, it's gonna destroy Microsoft, d00d!" I'm sure the Vietnamese felt the same way after they drove US troops off Vietnamese soil, then a few years later defeated an invading Chinese army.
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Linux is a serious threat to Microsoft's server software ...
"How dare Micro$uck say that they're not a monopoly! They have no competition!"
However, they have a clear monopoly in the desktop OS market.
If Microsoft is really a monopoly, then you must believe that Linux will be relegated to irrelevancy unless the government wins this anti-trust suit.
Nonsense. MS have a monopoly on Desktop OS's right now. That does not mean that linux can not take out a huge chunk of the server market (in fact it has already taken a substantial slice.
you guys really do have a lot to be worried about.
Yeah, that's why MS wrote the halloween docs (-;
Linux the server OS is ready for prime time. Microsoft most certainly does NOT have a monopoly on server OSs ... linux and novell have a large market share, and (other) UNIX have a significant minority ( when you consider the fact that the big unix servers are more multifuncitonal, and serve more users )
However, linux , the desktop OS still has a way to go. Microsoft do have a monopoly on desktop OSs.
Cheers,
--Elflord
It is rather clear to me that MS is merely trying to obfuscate the issue. No one ever said that the only way to erect a monopoly is by the lack of competing products. Just because there are similar, and perhaps superior, products out there does not mean that there are no barriers to entry. MS assures the sales of their Office Suite by effectively bundling it with their OS. Joe Sixpack is not going to spend another 100 bucks paying for an office suite if he already has Office*. Not to mention that MS is the standard, and that none of these products would sell worth a damn if they didn't have strong ability to read and write Office * documents. I don't see how the DoJ could possibly fail to point this out. Although MS's 'arguments' and obfuscation might pull the wool over a Jury's eye, I think this Judge knows better. MS is expecting to lose this battle, and is trying to win a PR campaign before the appeals process.
Furthermore, I think the DoJ should take another route. If MS indeed found to have violated antitrust laws, I think the DoJ should request the following:
1) If MS wishes to sell both the Operating System and the applications for their OSes, they _must_ fully disclose their API and other relevant materials. Furthermore, MS should pay for a full time mediation panel composed people who are familiar with the software industry. This would aid projects such as Wine tremendously. Not to mention all the Non-MS companies out there trying to produce software for the Wintel platform. My reasoning for this is because MS could easily argue that it is neccessary for them to produce applications for their new Operating Systems, and/or features. eg: Windows CE. When they first develop a new OS, regardless of the quality, someone needs to develop some good applications for it, otherwise it simply will not sell. My approach would kill such an argument.
2) That MS not be allowed to employ _any_ discriminitory pricing against OEMs and the like. By this I mean, MS sells Windows * to every OEM for the same price, there is no cohesive argument for economies of scale and the like. Furthermore, the would also not be able to sell their applications discriminatly. This would remove their influence over OEMs.
I believe these two combined would go a long away against the MS that we all love to hate.
Anyone who still believes that Macroslab didn't 'leak' the halloween papers on purpose... Well, nuff said.
Seems like a lot of you really need to make up your minds. A great deal of the time you're saying, "Linux is so awesome, it's gonna destroy Microsoft, d00d!" Then by the time the next thread comes along, you're up in arms, screaming, "How dare Micro$uck say that they're not a monopoly! They have no competition!" Please make up your minds already. If Microsoft is really a monopoly, then you must believe that Linux will be relegated to irrelevancy unless the government wins this anti-trust suit. Given the odds that anything meaningful will happen to Microsoft as a result of this suit -- very small -- you guys really do have a lot to be worried about.
Bring on the spin.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
"Linux is only free if your time has no value" -- JWZ, mozilla.org
It's simple. There's a Win32 version of StarOffice. That could have only been their reasoning if they didn't realize AbiWord also has a windows version.
1. The software is free. What kind of competition is it if you have to give your products away for free?
They actually also mentioned some of the corporations selling their products for good oldfashioned money.
send + more == money?
1) SPA is not worried about your personal use.
2) Neither CW nor SO are free for commercial use.
send + more == money?
It seems M$ want to take attention away from Corel(WP), Lotus etc. (Those who got killed by M$ aggression). I am sure Bois and the judge are sharp enough to understand this tomfoolery.
May be in M$ software standards.
You know,
this can backfire too (i think).
The DOJ is trying to prove that Microsoft is killing competition,
not that there is not competition.
So, for Microsoft to be guilty, DOJ must prove:
1. There are other products.
2. These products are not used because of the monopoly.
Microsoft did help proving part 1 of this.
The 2nd part is proved by the Halooween docs,
and many other witnesses.
(also by the fact that until the testimony, only geeks knew about KDE, etc)
But - by proving the 1st part, I think that they're just shooting their leg.
Unless --
they know KDE is alpha. thus by advertising it, people will use it, and say "word is better".
When the final version arrives, they wont use it because "word is better"
---
I'm going to live forever, or die in the attempt.
Got to this point.
0 129.asf
1) Downloaded the *evil* Netshow player.
2) found out what Location to get it to open
mms://netshow.msn.com/msnbc/video/28/c_caldera_99
Got a nice little message to upgrade To Media player!!!! Well it did say one would be availible for Unix in a couple weeks..
"Oh GOD what am I saying!!!"
help....
SGI and HP came out with nice noise on linux just in time for maritz to use that in his testemony as well, and we know HP and SGI are in bed with MS in other areas. So just how strong is their committment to linux? let's be blunt. is it for the benefit of microsoft, for some as yet undisclosed reward?
This case is MS' worst nightmare. They'd gladly turn linux into a little monster and give it 15% market share to get the DOJ off them. Then they can crush it - business as usual.
Don't get frustrated you guys. M$ is advertising Linux software, great huh? off course M$ has got a monopoly, and i don't think these statements will cahnge that. they're just plain funny! have a laugh, people...
[slammer56]
It even has its own implementation of a very Visual-Basic'ish scripting language built in. It's functionality may be so close to that of the MS products that it may even be vulnerable to Word macro viri!
Licensing was ridiculously cheap, and even FREE for personal use. I figure that's why Microsoft chose to mention other, less impressive products.
Did I mention that Star Office runs on just about any platform? Win9x/NT, Linux, Solaris, MacOS, and even Java.
I think it's the closest thing to knocking MS off the office desktop.
I've attached the relevant portion of the LGPL, version 2. This software is currently in violation of the LGPL for a few reasons:
1. I was not made aware of my rights at any time.
2. In conjunction with 1, I was not given a copy of the LGPL at the time of download and it was only through searching through the binary that I saw that this was included LGPL code.
3. I was not made aware that this included LGPL code.
Netshow has no license associated with it that I saw when I downloaded it, however, I've never seen a Microsoft license allow disassembling/decompiling/debugging.
I do believe that someone at the FSF will be hearing about this.
From Section 6 of the Library GPL, version 2 (sorry if it doesn't display right)
6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also compile or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a
work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification
of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.
You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by
this License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the
copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference directing the user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do
one of these things:
a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever
changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable
linked with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object code and/or source code,
so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library. (It is
understood that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the
application to use the modified definitions.)
b) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in
Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution.
c) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the
above specified materials from the same place.
d) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials or that you have already sent this user a copy.
For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for
reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is
normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on
which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license restrictions of other proprietary libraries that do not normally accompany the
operating system. Such a contradiction means you cannot use both them and the Library together in an executable that you distribute.
(This was snagged from http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/lgpl.html, sorry if it ran long.)