Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft redefines Open Source
DaBuzz sent us a fascinating
little article where you can read that
Microsoft is exempt from
trademark law. Talks about
Open Source having a variety of meanings, and how MSs definition
differs from Linux.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
This is a great article... because it calls into serious doubt MS's willingness to adhere to an open source model *before* the judge considers it as a possible remedy. (Assuming, of course, that virtuous MS actually loses the case to those anti-innovative forces in the goverment and industry. :-)
Now, the DoJ can take steps to prevent MS from being ordered to perform some remedy... then trying to redefine the terms of that order. The mere fact that Muth suggests Windows is "open source" because it's available to a handful of sites under a highly restrictive non-disclosure, non-IP license demonstrates how far they are willing to twist terms. I was surprised there was no mention of the "open source" Melissa MS Word Macro worm. (Oh yeah, mentioning a MS Word virus which requires MS Outlook and MS Express to propogate is probably not a good idea right now...)
If such would happen, you can guarantee ZDNet, MSNBC, etc would be right behind MS. And who's Joe Schmoe going to believe, some band of Linux weirdos at Slashdot and similar sites, or the supreme being, Mr. Gates, and trustworthy names like ZD, MSNBC, CNN, etc?
Forget about Linux distro's....
Every damn system is different! We got libc5
libc6. Different widget sets, window managers,
hell even different windowing systems (MetroX,
XFree86 et al)
A lot of boxes run kernels so well tuned
you can't even boot it on another machine!
I guess is too bad it all works, after all thats what really counts.
This is precisely the method used by authors at the start of the computer era such as Steven Levy, who wrote 'Hackers' on an Apple II. Back then you broke documents up into little bits so the software could deal with them.
...or _you_ are. Me, I don't do 'word processors'... my text is text, and whether it's Linux tools or BBEdit Lite, the stuff _I_ use can deal with multi-meg documents without flinching.
In some ways it's heartwarming to see that we're still there...
Ironically, I still like to write novels with chapters as separate files, which I guess illustrates that you _can_ fool all of the people all of the time, especially if most of them don't really care all that much, or expect any sort of progress over the years.
...I find the alternative even more scary.
Ok, Microsoft is trying to leverage some of the buzz surrounding the open source movement. But fundamentally, they're still using english words in a conversational way. While Microsoft has a trademark on Windows used as a name for a commercial OS, you and I can talk or write about windows in another GUI without ever having to acknowledge the Microsoft trademark. How is Microsoft to refer to what they're planning to do? To trademark a fairly generic term and then claim all uses of that term must refer to a specific set of conditions strikes me as a bigger assault on freedom than anything Microsoft has ever done. A trademark doesn't allow you to define the language.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
So Ballmer and Muth aren't reading off the
same PR script this week, no big deal, but
you can at least see that Microsoft is flirting
with the Open Source idea, tossing around the
ol' boardroom and debating about it internally.
They won't fully pursue it but they do know
how much it really matters to real IT people.
I expect Microsoft will release some code soon,
certainly not enough to apease the Open Source
advocacy crowd, but enough for Microsoft to get
some PR points from clueless tech journalists.
TedC
The trademark application, as i understand it, is for "Open Source." "open source" is a term that was in common use prior to the application, and could not receive a valid trademark in this context. It is also, as near as I can tell, what MS said.
I'm not going to touch the question of whether the "Open Source" trademark is valid . . .
No, I'm not.
While the use of a word in the language does not prevent it from becoming a trademark, or being registered as a trademark (the two are not the same), a trademark cannot push aside such prior use.
I cannot obtain or register a trademark for "tennis racket" in any way that will stop a manufacturor from selling what we now know as tennis rackets under tha tname. I could, however, use it as a trademark for a microprocessor.
Similarly, no registration of "Open Source" can stop it's use in the manner prior to the registration.
The ownership & validity of a trademark come from its use, not registration. Registration is a way of notifying the world that someone claims a trademark.
It is not rare for a national or regional chain to have a properly registered trademark, and find, upon trying to expand in a new market, that there is already a business there with the same name which predates the registration. The chain's trademark is not valid in that region; the local owns it. The typical result is that the chain pays far more than the small business is worth to either buy it or to get it to change its name.
I called it the "perens/raymond" organization becuase I couldn't remember the exact name, and I didn't want to get it confused with any of the other organizations with similar names. Sorry if it offended.
Anyway, as to the other matter, I quote some email I got from a friend who is an intellectual property lawyer, who was speaking off the cuff, not giving a professional opinion:
Anyway, I'm pretty skeptial of Software in the Public Interest's claim to
"Open Source" as a trademark. First, as far as I know, that registration
is still pending. So there's no finding that it's a legitimate mark --
just that SPI has applied for registration and is claiming that it's a
mark. Hell, I can apply for a registration for "IBM" and claim it's a
mark. Doesn't mean I'll get it.
Second, there's a company called Open Source Solutions who has apparently
used that name for at least five years before SPI's first use of it (at
least, they've been using the OSS.NET name since 1993, and I assume that
they only used that name because of their corporate name). I would expect
they would have something to say about SPI's attempt to claim the words
"open souce" as a trademark.
Personally, I believe that the term "open source" has been used
generically long before SPI's first use (February 1998), and that SPI has
no trademark in the term, notwithstanding its application for
registration.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Nobody owns a trademark on the term "Open Source". The Perens/Raymond organization has applied for a trademark, but they're never going to get it. There is prior use of the term, such as the "Open Source System Inc" company standing in their way.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Well, if Open Source can be used how ever they want, can we rename the GNOME project "Windows"
Maybe Bill Gates sees the division inside the Free Software community over the term "Open Source" and is now trying to add to the confusion.
Anyway, Open Source (TM) is Free Software (Freely Redistributable Software, or FRS).
Open Source is a trademark of the Software in the Public Interest.
And Microsoft is testing the water on violating the trademark. Microsoft is looking for a fight?
Is is time for the community to put aside differences and to stand together in preparation for the coming direct conflict with Microsoft?
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
I think it's absolutely ridiculous to be able to take common english words and prevent people from using them.
It's frankly even more stupid than software patents.
Hmm... A friend of mine installed Linux about 3-4 years ago at a company to run a simple customer database of some sort.
He used a commercial package to help write this software at the time, and this ran under Slackware.
Last year the multi-port serial board died in the computer. That model was no longer made, the new model did not have drivers for this version of Slackware with a 1.x kernel.
There were drivers available for RedHat 5.0, and so someone tried to upgrade the machine to that.
Well the new serial board worked. But the custom written software did not. It actually reported a rather interesting error:
"This is not a Linux system."
I can still run software written back in 1983 on my Windows NT machine. Not all of it, some of the stuff that uses funky Pharlap memory extensions and such does not always work well.
But even so, backwards compatibility is a design consideration that Linux has ignored.
And not just Windows, most of the commercial Unices, especially SCO, have tried to incorporate backwards compatibility within their systems.
What's that I hear? Microsoft not fragmented?
Let's see: Win95, Win98, WinNT, WinNT64, Win2k[1]
WinCE...
Guh.
[1] "Why are they naming an operating system after the greatest computer disaster in history?"
"Not to mention the year 2000 problem..." (Dialog on a.s.r.)
Zapman
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Forget about Linux distro's....
Every damn system is different!
Damn straight. I'm using bleeding-edge releases of my kernel, the C & C++ libraries and compilers, and a few other things at home that I won't be installing at work until they've been hammered on a while. My system here is using Window Maker, at work it's FVWM2, and my roommate is using KDE. He also drives a different car, wears different clothing, and likes different food. It's called "freedom of choice", and we like it.
For the record, all of the systems we own or run execute the exact same software binaries fine, (and the LinuxPPC systems run the same software code fine after a recompile).
We got libc5 libc6.
You forgot libc4. That's right, we've got old systems that only run libc5 binaries, ancient systems that only run libc4/a.out, new systems built around libc6, and new systems that run all three. We've got the same programs recompiling with few or no source code changes on the newest systems, but getting the technical benefits nonetheless. Read up on the technical differences between C libraries, and try to stretch your mind to encompass the concepts of "progress" and "backwards compatibility" at the same time. Once you've grokked that, email Microsoft and ask them why most of their drivers, DOS, and Win16 programs don't work with Windows "New Technology". Then ask them why most of their Win32 programs still don't work with "Windows 2000" without source code changes. Then ask them what's going to happen to that 32-bit specific API when they finally push 64-bit NT (a separate project from Windows 2000...) out the door three or four years from now.
Different widget sets, window managers,
Yeah, yeah: "Ein MFC, Ein Windows, Ein Microsoft." Great world for everyone to be forced to live in. Different widget sets and different window managers fill different needs of programmers and users, accomodate wider sets of preferences, and in general foster competition and evolution of software. Anyone horribly confused by a GTK program sitting on the same desktop as (or an adjacent virtual desktop to) a Lesstif program should probably just give up entirely and get WebTV.
hell even different windowing systems (MetroX,
XFree86 et al)
If you think those are different windowing systems, you need to go back and do some more reading. The exact same programs run on either and can't tell the difference. Most hardware works with either happily. In fact, chew on this: not only are different X servers not incompatible, they are so compatible that I can run decades old HP-UX programs on the same desktop next to new Linux software, with the only noticeable change being that Qt and GTK look better than Motif.
A lot of boxes run kernels so well tuned
you can't even boot it on another machine!
Yes, boxes whose owners have chosen to make those tuning changes themselves. Nobody's holding a gun to your head to force you to use 486 or Pentium II specific instructions, or to get rid of your EIDE drivers on a SCSI-only machine, you know.
I guess is too bad it all works, after all thats what really counts.
Try not to sound too disappointed.
I really don't understand the backlash here - for most people, if Linux isn't for you, don't worry about, ignore it in the papers and the trade rags, and it won't bother you again until they start advertising idiot proof distributions in 2005. If you're a Win9x user and happy that way then Linux just isn't a factor.
If you're an NT server programmer watching your world start to crumble, on the other hand, I can recommend several good books on the POSIX standard that you may find of interest in the near future.
Then why is their software so buggy?
I bet their quality control system consists of:
* Check if it breaks 3rd party apps: OK
* Check if Word doesn't break writing letter to mom: OK
* Convert to hungarian notation: SHIP.
--IDG.Net article 'Microsoft open to open source for Windows?'
At present, we have plenty of ``keep quiet'', but not enough freedom talk. Most people involved with free software say little about freedom--usually because they seek to be ``more acceptable to business.'' Software distributors especially show this pattern. Some GNU/Linux operating system distributions add proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to consider this an advantage, rather than a step backwards from freedom.
We are failing to keep up with the influx of free software users, failing to teach people about freedom and our community as fast as they enter it. This is why non-free software such as Qt, and partially non-free operating system distributions, find such fertile ground. To stop using the word ``free'' now would be a mistake; we need more, not less, talk about freedom.
Let's hope that those using the term ``open source'' will indeed draw more users into our community; but if they do, the rest of us will have to work even harder to bring the issue of freedom to those users' attention. We have to say, ``It's free software and it gives you freedom!''--more and louder than ever before.
--Richard Stallman
This is a dangerous time for our community. Microsoft is going to try to blur the line between what's good for them and what's good for us. In fact, I believe that this is Open Source's main pitfall - it implies that allowing people to look at the source will expand profits by making the software better, and people happier. This kind of makes sense for a company who *needs* open development to stay alive (like Netscape), but this is not the case for Microsoft. All the wishing in the world won't take away the fact that Microsoft is not genuinely interested in improving their product in any meaningful way. They are interested in making money - an improved software package would be merely a pleasant side effect. By making their product Open Source, they are interested in making those who are intolerant of Microsoft change their minds and at the very least stop working against them. They are interested in sucking mindshare and synergy away from us. That is all. There is a reason why Bill Gates is the richest man in the world - it's because he is a cutthroat businessman. If we forget that, even for an instant, we are doomed.
RMS isn't an idiot, he's seen this scenario coming from a mile away. I sincerely hope that recent events are making it more apparent that, for all the downsides there are to Free Software, it at least provides a good method to keep Microsoft, and others like them, from subverting everything we've worked for.
..that Linux doesn't even have yet? That would be:
(a) locked-down control by one company whose priority is profits, not performance?
(b) a second-rate GUI designed on third-rate principles?
(c) a FUD/PR engine working day and night to promote it?
Muth's statement that shrink-wrapped software runs on any Windows computer is demonstrably FALSE. One great example: at my office our highly-paid consultants worked for days trying to figure out why neither MS Access nor Pervasive's ODBC engine setup programs would even run under NT, regardless of who was logged in (even Administrator). One of the techs finally fixed it, but he had no idea how.
MS Access qualifies as "shrink-wrapped software". It's made and marketed by the same people who produce the OS it was to be running on.
I can tell you countless stories of how RPM files work great when you install them, but more than that -- if an RPM fails, I can grab the SRPM, rebuild it, and figure out what went wrong. Failing that, I can use the large number of free debugging tools (gdb, etc.) to figure out why the program doesn't run.
So let's give some credit where credit is due.
Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
Backwards compatibility? Hm. Around here I just recompile, and stuff works :)
Not knowing the nature of this custom software you're describing, I can't say anything except the fact that open source software wouldn't run into problems like that -- the customer could rebuild his own app, and/or find out why the app apparently decided it wasn't running under linux (despite the fact that "uname -s" would have revealed it was, whatever the version).
Backwards compatibility is fine. BEND-OVER-backwards compatibility is not something I feel any operating system needs.
Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
Is the service pack shrink wrapped? Oh, and how much does it cost?
--
Program Intellivision!
May be Muth and Ballmer need to have a conversation once in a while or may be this plain ol bs from ms!
, 1014079,00.html
"I find it hard to believe that some of the best computer scientists in the world will want to do their work for free," he said. "Without a long-term technical road map,without multimillion-dollar test labs, someone wants me to believe these visionary programmers and developers will want to do the best work of their lives and then give it away. I do not believe in that vision of the future."
ed muth, msoft
http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153
open what?
Even if 'window' was used in GUI terminology pre-MS, unless a company specifically named their windowing system "Windows" prior to MS, the trademark claim is still valid. Instead, "window" was used to describe one aspect of the GUI, rather than the entire GUI system or the whole OS. Here's an example: the Linux trademark fiasco. Because "Linux" had already been the name of the OS/Kernel for years prior to the guy from NJ trademarking it. This is what proved his claim fraudulent. If you can find a pre-MS GUI product named "Windows", then someone can take MS to court over it.
Anyways, the article itself didn't say anything about trademark. as long as MS doesn't claim "Open Source", they're in the clear. "open source" as a phrase is not trademarked. They may be stupid often enough, but they know well enough that use of a trademarked term will have to go hand-in-hand with complying to the terms of use of said trademark.
IANAL. I am not infallible. I admit that I could be wrong about this. Corrections (with evidence, counterevidence, etc.) Welcome.
marijane
Folks this is a test. It is a test of your resolve and the resolve of the whole Open Source Movement to fight for the ServiceMark of Open Source Software... M$ knows that Open Source is the best marketing tool we have right now...
They DO NOT have permission from Eric or anyone else I know of the use the term Open Source in relationship to their products. This is a legal fight folks... The first of many to come.
Don't be reactionary, be responsive and overcome these idiots by using the media against them, and using the law! Because that is exactly what they are trying to do to you..
First they will create a confusion in the minds of consumers about who and what is open source, then they will use their little Linux think tank known at egg.microsoft.com to come up with some hair brained scheme to associate Linux with thin clients only and how their NT is just "Too Good" to be used as a thing client but Linux is a small, admirable, pitiful attempt to make a free thin client thus obscuring what OSS and Linux really is.... A SERIOUS THREAT to Microsoft's empire...
Let's get with it folks. Take it from a guy who bet his whole business on Linux... and won!
I deal with the CEO's of other companies every day. They and the purchasing managers are the ones you have to make things clear to as they are the ones who write the checks. They are influenced by a number of things including public impression.
Let's do this in a civil, appropriate and mature manner but fight this as a tradmark infringement which is what it is...
Nick Donovan
Linux Data Systems
LSG
Having your name next to the words "Open Source" is turning into the computing world equivalent of a politician having his/her photo taken shaking the hand of the Pope. Though the two may have nothing in common with the other, nonetheless showing the two together lends an air of credibility and endorsement to one (often at the expense of the other!)
MS may also be muddying the water here. But after the "Al Gore" website, I think it's mostly word association. Muddying of "Open Source" is a secondary benefit on their part.
--Tiger
After reading this article, it occured to me that MS may be using its tried and true tactic by embracing the term 'Open Source' then extending its definition. If it starts talking its own version of open source to everyone, claiming Windows is just that, then the public will believe them. They probably figure that the OSI group will not attack them for trademark infringement.
By altering the very definition of what is/isn't Open Source, MS may be trying to attack Linux and other OSS projects from a completely different angle. As well, if they cannot change the definition outright, then muddling the definition may be enough. MS hates to play on other peoples terms, they try to fit the terms to their own needs.
That being said, I somehow doubt that the OSI or the community in general would sit quietly by if such a thing were to happen.
Would you please post the win9x workstation install? I enjoyed reading your server install.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
So you're claiming that something to the effect of
if(test `uname -r` != 1.0.3) then
echo This is not a linux system
exit 0
fi
Is Linux's fault? Yes, that's shell code and the program was probably written in something else, but if some moron inserts a brain-dead test to see if a system is a Linux system, that's not Linux's fault. Moreover, you should never quit after determining that the system isn't what you anticipated, you should print a warning and just try to work until you get an unrecoverable error (such as can't open a necessary file, etc.). If they have the source, this is probably a 1-line fix. Just remove that stupid check. Otherwise, well, they're screwed. But then again, try running all sorts of DOS binaries under NT, you'll have a very hard time. Furthermore, try running them that check for specific files, a specific FAT table type, or a specific verison number (say by looking at your command.com binary or some other stupid method).
No OS is ever going to protect you from idiots writing your code.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Microsoft can never kill GNU. They might be able to kill the current Linux hype, but they cannot even touch GNU. Why? Because GNU is free software (and Linux is also). No matter what Microsoft may do, I and my freed software comrades[1] will continue to develop, improve, and implement freed software to replace proprietary software. You can kill Netscape (or Apple) by killing their revenue stream--but when your revenue stream is funded by donations, or when you don't have a revenue stream (e.g. the Slackware folks or the Debian folks, to an extent), big, bad companies can't do much to hurt you, other than abuse patent law (which the courts will most likely reject).
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
I think Muth is making a bogus argument, and I think he knows it.
The problems within the source trees of each MSFT OS are pretty well known.
The commercial Unix OS's I have worked with have source trees that are just as broken.
Mozilla released portions of Netscape's source and it was broken too.
Consider any argument against Open Source that claims any quality or consistency benefits from having a single business entity controlling the source code bogus.
Distributing development of an OS in a way that forces independent justification and review of code changes has a positive impact on quality and consistency.
So this moderation system really seems to work. If there were another post by CmdrTaco about moderation, I would post it there, instead...
/. and to know what to expect to appear at /.
Now that my words actually have value, I find myself carefully reviewing, reading other arguments, and then posting a calculated post...
I also see something quite amusing here.
Anyone read Ender's Game? More specifcally, the sequal, in which Val and Peter Wiggins assume carefully crafted personas on the worldwide network, and through careful usage of word and opinion, gain rank, respect, fame, and influence?
I'd take the Peter Wiggins role, which I believe was called Locke, if anyone else wants to play Valentine's Demosthenes? As in the story, the game would involve getting higher and higher post values, carefully creating consistent personas, trawling the web not only for current info and viewpoints to manipulate and take advantage of, but also to post to
I have no plans or expectations for a hegemony or world conquest, as Peter did, but only to have fun, and see how cool it would be. Of course it would require people to take new personas, accounts, and names.
Random brain fart.
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
For it's part, I think M$ is misusing the term, but in reality, I also think everyone is mis-interpreting M$'s speculation.
If I recall correctly, M$ is considering releasing it's source to valuable customers, sort of a good will gesture and as a service. Home users don't quite qualify as valuable customers, yet. It's main use would not be the improvement of their OS, per se, but of a total quality cycle in which developers and massive deployments can rely on the source and being able to either debug, or at least accurately report to M$, a problem.
They are considering opening the source to their valuable customers, and not making their product Open Source(TM), IIRC.
As a business move, it's no different than an independent software house providing source alongside with binaries when doing proprietary stuff.
It would also, on M$ part, tie the relationship closer to it's customers, for good and for bad.
It might also lead to some really good improvements in the future of the Win OSes if large organizations such as SGI, IBM, HP, Dell, Compaq, etc., were able to examine the source, offer improvements, extensions, and patches, without M$ spending much on it, and these companies will get the ability to differentiate their products.
SGI would be able to extend and expand their Visual PC, for example... And still maintains some level of compatibility with the Win32API, if for example M$ rules that the APIs stay fixed and only the implementations can be free, sort of the way that OpenGL is currently, with the API well defined, each vendor responsible for designing and releasing an ICD/MCD, and also with each vendor being able to release and offer extensions using the OpenGL extensions capability.
It may mean that a valuable customer is someone to whom M$ has been paid to see the source, like a down payment or lease or deposit to ensure that the source isn't leaked.
It's not a bad move, I think.
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
The problem is that Open Source (as the term is used by 99% of the people on Slashdot) actually has multiple meanings -- there's the trademarked one, and there's the "Open Source == GPL" one, which is alas, completely and utterly *wrong* [Open Source is a superset of GPL].
Indeed. Now how does that show that the term 'Open Source' has multiple meanings? Unlike most words in natural languages, terms like this are NOT defined by usage. Just as 'binary tree' or 'MSCE' in certain context means exactly one thing -- in a similar manner, 'Open Source' in this context means one thing, and this meaning is not dependent on the term's common usage.
Problem 1: There's no actual quote from Muth on the "definition of Open Source" -- he's just stated as saying that "open source" has a variety of meanings -- now take it as a quote from someone who's not well versed on open source -- BSD and GPL are different "meanings" of Open Source. So, that's what he could be talking about.
Wrong. BSDL and GPL (and QPL and MPL and others) are examples of OS licenses -- just as both Tokyo and New York are examples of cities. All this means is that 'Open Source license' is a set rather than a primitive term, and specific licences are its members. There is only one -- rather rigid -- set of criteria for the membership in the set 'Open Source licenses'. No confusion or plurality of meanings here -- that one set of criteris is the meaning of 'Open Source license'.
Strike one...
Problem 2: The paragraph that starts out "Differing Definitions"... 'But its definition of "open source code licenses" means making the technology available to only a select group of computer scientists' -- this DEFINITELY looks like bad reporting to me. Look at the test that goes before it: "Microsoft says it has, for the past five years, been licensing some or all of the underlying programming...." -- sounds like the journo decided that this "licensing" must be what MS meant by open sourcing its stuff!
Note that the full sentence goes like this:
So, if we are to believe the letter of this, the reporter seems to merely be paraphrasing Muth's statement, rather than imposing his/her own interpretation of the state of affairs. You cannot get away with blaming the reporter's assumptions here -- the only way to ditch this paragraph, is to say that the reporter paraphrased incorrectly, rather than drew an invalid connection -- to say that the reporter misrepresented rather than misconstrued, to say that the reporter lied.
Strike two...
Solution? You all need to read/get hold of a transcript of the interview before blowing your stacks in future. Or at the very least, take what you read with a pinch of salt.
Actually, as I have shown, your attempt at analysis here is not quite up to par with the standards that you proclaimed in the message's title. The solution thus is to read the article more carefully, rather than to attempt such a badly-done (likely due to personal bias) deconstruction.
Strike three -- and yer out.
Dude, when you accuse others of lack of critical thinking, you better be damn sure that your own arguments are sound, and that your analyses are bulletproof. It's, like, obvious, dude!
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
Try installing the latest service pack. It works WONDERS.
Yep, wonders like: breaking RAS, breaking IIS, breaking DAO...
Last time I called Platinum for IIS support (because it was soaking 100% CPU and answering requests only for static pages, not ASP), the first thing they said was "Install SP4 or hit the road."
SP4 wouldn't install.
Let us make a list, then, from personal experience:
- Windows itself; it usually takes 4 or 5 tries to install, not to mention the hours necessary for debugging the driver situation.
- Microsoft Office 97 Service Release 2. Maybe a third of installations result in measurable brokenness.
- Microsoft Internet Explorer. 65% of installs fail. Half of successful installs break the machine. Nuff said.
- Microsoft Internet Information Server 4.0 and Active Server Pages. If it installs, which it doesn't often do properly, there is inevitably something or other wrong, often the scripting engines. Want to see a sample broken site? Microsoft has one.
- Microsoft Java Virtual Machine. Can anyone get this to work?
- Games. They have about a 50% failure rate on average because of varying driver requirements.
- Drivers of all kinds, especially video drivers. In fact, the drivers that ship with Windows are usually broken!
That's quite a few just off the top of my head. With effort I'm sure I could find more applications that don't work out of the box. I think nearly everyone has a story about them!For example, Muth made the statement about any shrink wrapped software running on any computer running Windows, and that it is due to a central hold on the Windows source tree.
Note that a majority of my list is comprised of Microsoft products? Given that they have central hold of the OS source, wouldn't you expect that they could do better?
But I can tell any of you countless stories of how a rpm package may or may not run on any Linux installation.
I can think of maybe three or four times I've installed the wrong RPM. rpmfind has a way of coming up with TurboLinux or SuSE packages that don't work well with Red Hat, but they're easy enough to back out. In every case, I simply located the RPM for the distribution I was using (in these cases, Red Hat) and had no trouble at all using them.
Compare and contrast with two weeks of wrestling with Microsoft Option Pack 4.0 to get IIS installed on an NT server. Nothing shy of a reinstallation of NT would convince OP4 to install, since it seemed to fail to correctly register its DLLs during installation.
I don't know enough about Debian packaging to speak with any authority towards it, but I can't imagine it is much worse than RPM, and I've had nearly no problems at all with RPM, and certainly none that compare to the troubles I have when building and configuring Windows boxes (except for how badly rpm segfaults when you build it under pgcc. Maybe it's time to upgrade the compiler on the buildbox, eh?)
It's all about the shareholders - since many of them are employees of Microsoft (stock options -- many employees of Microsoft are receiving good stock options, as opposed to great pay), it'd be devastating if their stock went to shit. The employees would be furious, and/or leave.
They'd do anything to get people to demand their stock. They even split it the other day. It might even be surmisable to perceive the possibility that the latest drop in stocks is accountable to Microsoft (et. al) selling shares elsewhere in the stock market, and buying up their own.
With the DOJ trial, press happy Linux, and the relative freedom of major vendors, I would not want to own Microsoft stock right now. To keep the price up, to keep investors from worrying (the slow/dumb ones worry, the smart ones have already moved on), Microsoft provides the billion $ buffer to keep the stocks from dropping a penny.
The buffer doesn't last forever. Serious consumer contempt exists, as does corporate distrust, for MS. You can't take their history of nearly pure corporate evil (in my humble, but correct, opinion), and turn it around on a dime. If it ever happens, it'll be down the road.
You have a different definition of "Open Source"? Fine, I have a different definition of "Windows". After all, the word "windows" is a common english word -- much more common than "open source". I have windows in my house. I have windows in my car.
Therefore, I am going to create a window manager for free operating systems and call it, "windows". By your own logic, you can't stop me. There are many definitions of "windows" and my software just happens to use a different one.
This is "Embrace and Extend 101". It's the same tactic that MS used with Java. Embrace your threat ("open source"), then extend it with your own proprietary stuff (highly restrictive licenses). Tell the public you're just trying to "make it better" by destroying the standard.
/* Ok, my rant's over. I'll go back into "impartial observer" mode now. */
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Yup -- sounds like you're bitter alright. :-P
You know, I have *NO* idea how Word2k will operate on a 100 page document. But let's see, shall we? (Just got to finish installing Win2k, so please bear with me).
First of all -- how much memory, and what processor are *YOU* running so we can compare?
Secondly, if there are indeed still problems, as a workaround you can break up your document into chapters, or whatever, save them out as separate documents, and combine them in the Master Document view. Helps if your read the docs, you know.
Why am I replying to this? No idea. I work on Visual Studio, so Office2k is nothing to do with me.
Coming soon - pyrogyra