Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Demands Freedom to Innovate
Christopher Bibbs writes "Microsoft is trying once again to rally the troops and let Congress know that the American people want them to back off. They also have a pretty funny letter to the shareholders over here." The shareholder letter says, "Regardless of your perspective, this tool will allow you to share your views, send a letter or email to your elected officials..." There's also an invitation to "call us at 1-888-642-4097." Remember, polite comments do more good than nasty ones, regardless of your perspective. ;-)
so should everyone else. In other words, they can write their software ANY way they want, who cares, as long as they dont reduce other's freedom by unethical marketing practises
I think that's all that I need to say
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
[DEEP BREATH] Ahhh...well. I think that people are being a bit harsh on Microsoft. I won't deny that I dislike their operating systems, and, to be honest, just about all their software apart from Age of Empires.
Limitations on Microsoft's activities should be the same as would be applied to any company. They should not be a special case. Although they have had a few (ahem!) shady practises, their virtual monopoly isn't entirely their fault. Certainly, very few hardware companies had the balls to stand up to them, even though it's clear that if they'd banded together they could have limited MS influence. There's also the practise of companies buying MS goods to consider. There have always been alternatives to NT for instance; ones which have been proven reliable over time. If a company then chooses to switch, simply because MS says it's for the best (what do you expect them to say?!) then it's their own fault when they get caught up in the Upgrade Cycle of Death.
One thing MS did do was make plenty software easily available to the masses. Windows (even NT) is pretty cheap compared to much of its competition. You might even argue that Linux (with GNU) is the next step in the Software for the People movement, providing affordable open software for anyone who wants it.
I guess the point is, people do have a choice now. Linux is a viable alternative. Go a bit easier on MS.
Phew. A post from me supporting MS. I'm away for a spot of skiing in Hell.
dylan_-
--
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
Microsoft hasn't really innovated in a long time.
DirectX was probably thier only innovation, and most of thier other innovations have been attempts to crush companies that got a jump on them.
If they were truely into innovation they would invest more into NT on Alpha, instead of cancelling it and removing the major clustering bits out of Win 2000.
Thier freedom to innovate, really is a freedom to lobby for less competition and reduced advances in technology.
Word and all the other Office applications have improved so considerably that Microsloth has now created a new group to fix all the viruses created by "Office Developers" (geez, can you imagine having that for a job title) that are embedded in these wondrous applications.
Yep, I sure love it when my application is inundated with needless "features" and is about as open as an CIA project meeting.
I don't know about you, but I'll stick with the limiting applications like Star Office. What ever will I do without all those annoying evil macros and viruses now?
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
Another thing is that I have heard that they have their own API into Windows. So even if you program for Windows, you are already at a disadvantage because you are given an inferior set of rules to play by. This also is wrong.
ROFL that's the single stupidified thing I've read this weak. They write Win32, then they write InternalWin32??
Don't think so, it's so improbably in so many ways. There are some scarcly documented API calls. Microsoft knows Windows survives because of Applications and Developers - You think Windows would survive with just MS software alone?
Lastly, have you noticed that the evil Bill Gates just gave one billion
I never notice him giving anything before his PR committee told him that his public popularity was one step below the devil
You're very isolated - The Gates foundation is worth like 17billion, which means he's managed to give away 16 other billions. Infact, Gates has been giving away his money steadily - it's been increasing tho - like he's promised.
Say, you know, maybe Gates was tromatized so baddly by that guy who pied him in the face, that the word FIN is starting to seep into everything he does. Maybe we'll next see Microsoft rename Windows 2000 to FIN 2000. It will be just like that Simpson's episode where Homer is so mad at Moe for stealing the "Flamming Homer", that all here hears anyone say when they talk is the word "Moe, moe moe moe, moe? Moe moe moe!"
;p
Actually my hopes are that FIN actually stands for Final Indecisive Movement
or for that matter ruin the economy of a small country
I don't mean to burt your bubble, but Microsoft has launched a massive campaign to buy Congress and special interest money. Just about every member of Congress who voted form Microsoft last year received at least $1000 directly and thousands more through Party donations. My recommendation is to vote against members of Congress who take bribes from Bill Gates.
I'm sad to say that most of the readers (and moderators from what I've seen) aren't open-minded enough to look at your argument without getting all emotional and fanatical about their beloved OS. Your words on this linux fan-site aren't going to change anyones "well-thought out" views of the world of Linux and Microsoft.
There have been some good innovations, graphical web browsing, the GUI. More recent innovations include things like MP3 compression.
There isn't a lot of innovation on Linux because linux is still mostly a server product, and as such has to fit in with the established protocols.
This is partly whats microsofts "innovation" is about - they define a "new standard" to grab market share. The innovation here isn't about whats good for computing, its about whats good for shareholds and thier pockets. By innovating with closed protocols and NDA'd documentation, they attempt to force a product into the market and close out the competitors that might actually release a bug free version that works faster.
Microsoft aren't a fast company. Thier relase calendar is 3 years. The hardware release calendar is 18 months. Microsoft are always going to be behind the wagon no matter what.
This is what microsoft are trying to protect 1) Thier money and 2) Thier products (see #1)
The thing that came out of the various microsoft trials wasn't that microsoft were locking the market to innovate - they were locking the market to screw a few extra bucks out of people. Note for example, we are contantly buying PC's in. When win 95 first came preinstalled, we got a nice user booklet, and cd in a case. Today we get a license leaflet, 35 floppy disk labels and a pointer telling us to make our own install kit. Microsoft are probably saving an extra 2 dollars doing this.
Loook at the zealots and evangelists here - ready to burn bill gates at the stake.
I bet they make annual pilgramiges to Transmeta everyear to worship Linus at his place of work.
No, no, you're all missing the point here. It's not the freedom to innovate in the world of software. That's too difficult; they just live by the happy maxim of "Buy or Stomp".
It's been obvious that Gates' sphere of innovation is that of business cruelty. When have you even seen such inventive and creative ways to gut competition and smile at the mindless consumers? Their ability is so awe inspiring that, well, they are mostly untouchable.
The whole "grassroots" effort here is a prime example of their innovation. It almost [ahem] makes you feel bad for them. Well, if you had no idea how completely evil they are.
The really, really beautiful part of this whole thing is the "grassroots" aspect. I mean, according to their thesaurus, synonyms of "grassroots" are: waged people, proletariat, working class, workers, masses, the herd and plebs [sic]. Last time I checked, a multi-billion dollar corporation hardly constitutes as a grassroots organizer.
If you want pure innovation, try using the MSDN help for Java. They go through great and inventive lengths to keep you from finding help on the standard class library. They just keep pushing you into the MS classes hierarchy... now that's the kind of innovation that made this country great!
I hope they all die, all of them.
P.S. [naive mode] Hey, I thought the MICROS~1 8.3 MS-DOS name conversions were pretty innovative. Anyone else?
And I believe that freedom means my right to own slaves. I mean, this is the economy we're talkin about! Damn socialists.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
No, I didn't actually write it myself, just stole it from a Dutch website that probably stole it somewhere else. There is no mention of a source there, that's why I didn't quote it (that and I'm lazy).
superblog.org: all your favourite blogs on o
Actually, there have been, in the earlier stages of the company.
Microsoft's BASIC was one of the earliest language products for the infant PC market.
That's the only one I can think of.
The problem with other products that MS claims as being innovative is that it's innovative only in the very limited area of the MS universe, eg., COM+, Visual Basic, etc. This would be similar to AOL claiming its proprietary hypertext language (Rainman?) is innovative.
I wouldn't be surprised if they'd created innovative products when MS was a small company fighting IBM and Apple. Does anyone recall?
Also, now that they have a major research lab, they may come up with breakthroughs, simply due to the sheer number of researchers working there. Their biggest problem has been backward compatibility, which tends to stunt innovation.
was it 'Error 98, you are not using MS Internet Explorer'?
I'd be more inclined to suspect the slashdot effect combined with crappy servers than MS writing an AI that works.
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
The only thing that has to be done is break Microsoft up in to parts:
- one part that makes OS-es
- one part that makes applications
If there was Microsoft Office for Linux and Beos and (fill in youre favourite os) then the part that of Microsoft that makes OS-es would really have to innovate and compete on the basis of features for the OS.
It's the combination of making an OS and the applications that makes the "monopoly".
Joost
Does the FIN logo count as defacing the flag? "In 1989 when the flag-burning controversy arose, I joined with the American Legion in taking steps to react. I signed legislation outlawing flag burning or defacing the flag, but I also wanted to stop flag burning before it starts." --Bill Clinton, speech to the American Legion, 8/25/92
I went, I saw and I was not conquered.
:-)
There was no feedback button where I could have asked if *I* could innovate. Without that possibility, its just BS wrapped up in a flag.
Microsoft is acting like a PAC (politician action committee) or worse like politicians. Well, they should suffer the fate of politicians. There are at least TWO parties in any democracy. They share in the general apathy of the populace and their fortunes are as variable as the last election.
Also their leadership is forced to roll-over.
Would YOU like to be King'O Redmond for a term? What Catbert-ish damage I could inflict!
-Charles-A.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
!= is synonomous with "not equal to"
( x != y ) is most certainly an assertion. I can clearly assert that 1 != 2.
The question comes in when you say "if".
Only a non C-programmer would get that confused.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
The flag is completly out of line. Sure I feel they can do whatever they like with it, burn it, wipe thier bum with it, make love to it, whatever. But after serving in the worlds most powerfull military (and if you doubt that just try us) I do take notice of people doing something like this to something I care about and was willing to die for....and my father was willing to die for...and his father was willing to die for. Maybe if we had kept "Don't tread on me!" they would have gotten the point. Sure it is just a symbol...but what is it a symbol for....well when you are over seas its a symbol for everything you have, your family, yourhome, your church, your friends, your ISP.
Point? Yeah I have a point, just picture a big fella pointing a finger at you saying " I wouldn't touch that if I were you!" before you attempt to mess with the flag again.
We (the company where I work) use Microsoft products too. We often use the MS knowledge base. It can be good - it can also be a pain. But how is this innovation? ;-)
I also spent an hour this morning installing all the clip art for Office 2k on someone's PC. Their wonderful "innovative" install on demand system is not all it's cut out to be.
Sure, let them innovate. But please, don't let them continually claim their products to be much, much, more than what they are (in doing so stifling the competition), and please, let's stop this proliferation of Windows NT CDs that we get with every PC, regardless of how many licences we have. This is NOT innovation, it's dubious marketing and sales strategies. What they have innovated I will gladly give them credit for. I use MS VC++. I like it. The class viewer is useful, as are the other tools. This is innovation. The office assistant and install-on-demand may be innovation, but IMHO they are a load of cack and don't work correctly. The lawsuit by the DOJ is less to do with their programming ability than their ability to buy out / out-maneuver their rivals using dubious business practices.
If MS had just used market capability to reach to reach their current status I would feel differently. However, on the back of their DOS licensing (which made them a lot of money) and their continual sale of software that costs a lot and doesn't do much more for the average user, I feel that it's time that their bluff was called.
Freedom to innovate should mean just that.
Freedom to innovate without the latest version of Outlook (beta, of course) saying that your e-postcards could contain a virus.
Freedom to innovate without Windows (again, beta) saying that your version of DOS is incompatible and you should use MS-DOS.
Etc.
BTW, I'm using an MS keyboard to type this. And those are good.
Most Smalltalk environments allow you to do this. They have had this sort of functionality for years.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
Hmm, I wonder... If you restrict someones freedom, do you still have freedom yourself?
An attack on anyone's freedom is an attack on everyone's freedom. I think freedom gains value the more people have of it. By taking it away from anyone, you're reducing the freedom of everyone else. Too many people don't get that.
Of course, there is a point where there is "too much" freedom, and as a result the worth of freedom goes downhill. If you give someone the freedom to kill, then you watch as plenty of people lose their freedom to live.
The goal should be to find the point where everyone has as much invidual freedom as possible but without reaching the point where one person's freedoms start infringing on another's.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Can anyone think of any innovative product to come from Linux?
If you're posing this question to suggest that Linux is no better than M$, then you're missing the point. Linux doesn't have a "Freedon to Innovate" site up in which they are asking you to write your Congressman, nor is anyone involved in Linux invoking the word "innovate" in some kind of PR campaign.
There may be any number of original ideas implemented in the Linux kernel, but the whole idea of developing a Unix kernel in open source is not to create something "innovative". On the contrary, the idea is to build upon the successful concepts underlying an OS that has proven itself over the past thirty years. What you need most from a kernel is stability, and Linux provides it, by employing technologies whose reliability is well established.
In contrast we have M$, trumpeting something about "innovation". And as others have pointed out, this is outrageous dounblethink, because M$ has never innovated any significant technology. However commercially successful some of their products may have been, they were, with no exception I know of, bought, copied or "embraced and extended".
When M$ speaks of "innovation", what they really mean is the ability to bundle software, such as the Explorer, with their operating system, and to do so without any legal penalties. Their argument in court and in public has been that this bundling was "innovation". In truth, it was a violation of a standing consent decree and of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, specifically designed to drive Netscape out of the market. So now they have to color their illegal act as "innovation" and beg Congress and the public for sympathy.
No one involved in Linux needs this ploy.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
I would like to know exactly how "overwhelming" the response has been to their campaign. I told them exactly what I thought of their "Freedom to Innovate" campaign, but had no response whatsoever. Obviously they'll wish to keep negative responses quiet, but I'd like to know how many they got compared with positive ones. I'd especially like to know how many negative responses they get after someone's tried to find an article in their knowledge base... ;-)
Okay guys, I hate to say this, but...
The issues are not all that clear cut.
Microsoft IS being anti-competitive. No Question. However, I think that the more important issue here is freedom of software.
ANY company should be able to develop ANY damn piece of software they want. If it undercuts another piece of software, hey, that sucks, get a net.
I am forced to use NT4 at work, due to the fact that the system I'm programming is forced to run on it (long story). And, I hate to say this, but Internet Explorer is much, much, much better than Netscape on this platform. WAY better. It has more security problems, true. A lot of "features" turned out to be bugs in the long run. But it works better, doesn't crash nearly as often, and is one hell of a lot faster than Netscape is.
Netscape could have beaten IE. Anti-competitive practice aside, there was a point, when IE was being integrated into the OS, that Netscape could have utterly destroyed IE forever. All they had to do was usurp the integration away from IE. IE became the windows default shell (it's not anymore, BTW.. IE5 doesn't even give you that option anymore). If Netscape had given you that option, back in Netscape 3, IE would have been toast. OEM's would have integrated the thing before anyone else had the chance.
And let's face it. Netscape had one hell of a monopoly on the market. They had almost total market coverage. For a long time, Netscape was the ONLY browser ANYONE used. They assured this by:
a) giving it away for free
b) using netscape propietary extensions (CENTER anyone?)
c) always supporting the latest HTML specs
d) making it into an overall system. (e-mail, ftp, gopher, everything but telnet)
Then, they made a lot of money by selling licenses to businesses, for the same free product they gave to individuals, at unreasonably huge rates. We're talking upwards of $1000 a copy here. (I know this is true, since I worked for a company that had to buy these damn things. The paperwork was immense.) And the businesses, at that time, had no other choices, since nothing else was on the market.
Let's face it. Netscape had it, they lost it. Microsoft may have been a bit anti-competitive, but Netscape sure as hell had a monopoly. Don't nail one without the other too.
Otto puts his flame-retardant-suit on...
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Is that a computer replacing the stars? I didn't know we were now the United States of Computer?!? Man, this site screams a need for parody.
Hmm? hehe.heeeheheeheee.heeheeHEEHAAWWHHAWWWHAWW HAWWHAWWHAWW-*choke*gasp*erp*...heeheehee...
eswan - a mozilla ate my cookie.
Microsoft have essentially had the freedom to 'innovate' up until now, and just look at what they've come up with - proprietory systems that redefine the word "unstable"
In any case, what community are you refering to? The 'Open Source' community? The Linux Community? The UN*X Community? or the online/computing community as a whole?
We should all have the freedom to innovate, it's organisations like M$ that seek to restrict that freedom by squashing opposition and their good ol' propoganda.
I say break 'em up, or force them to make Windows Open Source (or at the very least free). The second option is attractive, I would feel less disinclined to pay 200 or whatever it is for Office if I hadn't had to pay about for Windows!
If Microsoft really want to encourage innovation, the way to go about it is *not* to start lobbying Congress to leave them alone - it's to start developing good products in a fair way.
Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
I know someone who codes for MS.
MS is not just one big company. They outsource a large percentage of the development to smaller companies. Only the major MS apps such as Office and Windows are written in house. Have a look on the boxes of other Microsoft products. They'll have more than one software house on it... Microsoft are becoming a PUBLISHER.
- Damnit, I'm dead Jim
Exactly what do they mean with "Freedom to innovate"?
It would be apropriate for movements like "Down with sofware patents" or "Free the code" but not for a "Help us keep our monopoly" movement.
However, it would propably help if they actually wanted to innovate. I remember my fealings of disgust on seeing their ripoff of speedisk (sp?) and discdoctor (sp?) (both Nortons/Symantics) in DOS 6.0. That was when I first became aware of their `innovation'. Before that, I actually thought they were innovative (being totally naive in these things at that time). It took getting a taste of real os power (Linux) to make me realise just how lousy windows was/is (dos is actually ok as something to launch real things like DJGPP). Hmm, I don't think I ever thanked DJ Delorie, I'll have to do something about that.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
I think very-small-and-soft should be break down into two parts:
part that make OS, Office, Servers,...
part that make working software
then somebody should burn the first part.
Play with LEGO!
once again, the true muscle behind the company appears to be its marketing/propoganda divisions
yikes.
"The electric light is pure information"
-- jimmycarter
Microsoft has ALWAYS had the freedom to innovate. It's really rather insulting that they would attempt to sell such baseless propaganda to us. What Microsoft really wants is the freedom to have undue influence over the software industry. The freedom to dictate to consumers what software they will use by limiting their choices. The freedom to essentially stamp out any competition or true innovation that doesn't come out of their own R&D department. I see no reason to give them this freedom. In fact I see a lot of reasons why we should line the top execs at Microsoft up in front of a firing squad.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
REDMOND, Wash. - Sept. 16, 1999. - SONY and Microsoft Corp. today announced their cooperation program to support new revolutionary media in Microsoft's new flagship product Windows 2000. The revolutionary Industry Standard OS will contain new startup sounds made by Michael Jackson.
"We are thrilled of this possibility to have professional quality startup sounds in Windows 2000," said Microsoft's Chairman Bill Gates. The new sound files will be a special edition of soundtrack "Leave me alone", written by Michael Jackson while he was being prosecuted of child abuse. Microsoft is also planning a video starring Bill and Melinda Gates around the new startup sounds.
Microsoft will also start a new division for teaching Windows to children. Attendees will get a free Furby and a trip to Michael's amusement park for more personal training.
"The FIN is a non-partisan, grassroots network of citizens and businesses who have a stake in the success of Microsoft and the high-tech industry.
Microsoft have somehow manage to 'embrace and extend' the definition of non-partisan to include people that 'have a stake in the success of microsoft'
How can anyone have a problem with innovation like that!
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
And for the record, I agree with those folks here who have noted that Microsoft actually has had freedom to innovate all along, but that as a result of their actions, their competitors have in many cases been deprived of that freedom.
Freedom to innovate, indeed. Pah!
The FIN is a non-partisan, grassroots network of citizens and businesses who have a stake in the success Microsoft
For this, please read "shareholders". Non-partisan shareholders at that, apparently.
And this leaves me wondering whether MS will now start looking to slap the patent on "Grassroots networking technology for Citizens", as it certainly looks as though they've "Embraced and Extended" the meaning ever so slightly.
Anyway, they've thoughtfully provided a link to congress reps. How nice of them. And apprently they want to hear the views of "real consumers".
Heh..
Ok, Slashdot, what are you waiting for? I feel we have a nice collection of "real consumers" right here, so, please be nice to poor Microsoft, and let your congress rep. hear what you think. But PLEASE be pleasant and polite about it. The kind of message you'd let your mum read. If someone has a little more time than I have right now, maybe they'd be kind enough to provide a letter template to base the response on.
Anyhow, that's enough from me, back to work I guess.
Malk.
I don't know but this whole thing just puts Animal Farm in the front of my mind. M$ as the pigs.
It must be me just seeing a preview of it somewhere.
I see your mouth moving, but what the hell are you saying?!?
Well, I'm sorry sir, but I have to disagree strongly. Freedom is not "free". When you move out of your parents house, you have your freedom, but all of a sudden you are on your own. Freedom brings responabilaty, for your self, at least. (hmm.. bad example) :)
Maybe I'm just Neo-romantic utopian, freedom does not give you (you, as in anybody) rights to violate other people freedom. (sounds a bit catch22 problem)
Jón
Freedom of Choice which MS somehow seems to limit every time it takes on a competitor.
...but then again, it's only for Java. What languages does VS support this for?
That was hardly "froth."
Bought it. At least that's what I read -- and since I saw it on the web, it must be true, right?
Unfortunately, I don't remember where I saw it, so I don't have a link.
Sorry, but even their keyboards aren't worth what they cost. I don't like that ergonomic thing.
I wish IBM's keyboards still used mechanichal switches. Now THAT was a sign of quality!
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
Looks a LOT like Laura Croft, doesn't she?
(cue ominous music)
Be afraid. Be VERY afraid...
**>>BELCH
What about Flight Simulator? Did they write it or buy it? I know I have (or had) a really old version of it for the old Atari Computer (think it was ver 1 something) and I believe it had the MS label on it back then. I need to look and see if I still have it around (at grandparents house far away) and have another look at it. I used to think that was one of the few pieces of software they actually did write. If I'm wrong I would be interested to know.
We have enough youth, how about a fountain of SMART?
I mean, come on folks !!
Before the DOJ case, Microsoft single handedly invented Operating Systems, Graphical User Interfaces, Word Processing and the Internet !!
The DOJ is holding back this immensely innovative company from inventing Virtual Reality, Embedded systems and on-demand streaming media. If they don't lay off soon somebody else might think of it first !!
music
Dear Senator or Representative (personalized for each recipient):
I am writing at the invitation of Microsoft to express my opinion on their anti-trust trial.
I most certainly expect the anti-trust laws and other regulations that apply across the economy to all industries would be applied to an industry as large and important as the software industry. As a software professional, I found Microsoft's arguments insulting--to my intelligence and to Judge Jackson's.
Clearly, they tied their browser into the operating system to make it impossible for Netscape and others to compete. If it were not a separate component, how could they produce the identical product for the Macintosh, where they have no control over the operating system?
Clearly, they have monopoly power over the manufacturers of Intel-based PCs. It is only because of the previous consent decree and the publicity generated by this trial that PC manufacturers have been able to start distributing new PC's with other operating systems like Linux. The government's pursuit of this trial has allowed Microsoft's customers and competitors to go after new businesses and technologies free from the threat of reprisal.
Microsoft wants freedom to innovate. Copying a competitor's software product and using your monopoly over the operating system to ensure free distribution of the copy is not innovation. It's anti-competitive and unfair. True innovation comes about when the basic rules of fair commerce are respected and enforced. Microsoft's lack of respect for the law and its officers is an embarassment to the entire industry.
Mmm, MS didn't write Age of Empires, they simply commissioned, published, marketed it. And yes, it is a good bit of software, as is Excel (which they did write), and FAIK, MS Flight Simulator, which a pilot friend of mine praises highly.
MS should be punished/restrained becuase they have done wrong, not because they are bad.
People are welcome to write very bad software, and companies are welcome to buy it. The fact that bad stuff succeeds in the marketplace and good stuff fails is not unique to either Microsoft or the software industry. It's a pity when it happens, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it.
-----
Either way, since when do laws have anything to do with the majority's opinion? I didn't even realise it had to do with anyone's opinion.
Well, the laws are made by the government which are voted in by the majority. I see that as having something to do with it; don't you?
I think we should REQUIRE them to innovate, for once. They should lose the freedom to buy and steal existing technology, and have to invent their own for once in their corporate existance.
MS isn't part of "the community" of Open Source.
;-)
In fact, they are the opposition to everything that Open Source stands for and tries to do. They don't care about quality or open standards, but just want to increase the value of their stock options! They're a parasite on computing.
I sent M$ a polite but stiff note. However, here's what I sent all the links for my reps (in my case, Clinton, Feinstein, Boxer, and Cox), and I'd encourage everyone who replies to Microsoft to also write their Senators and Representives with similar messages. Don't let them prevail!
"I'm using a website Microsoft put up to provide their faithful easy access to their legislators.
However, I'm using it to oppose any attempt to let Microsoft off the hook for their criminal past of lies, outright theft, and other patently illegal practices. Resist their MS apologists!
In my opinion, Microsoft should be tarred and feathered and run out of this country on a rail.
Best regards,"
As they say in Chicago, vote early and often.
Aren't we all getting tired of Microsoft's plaintive cry about having the freedom TO innovate? To give MS the freedom to inovate, as they define it, is to throttle innovation's freedom. Because MS works by hiding API calls, incorrectly implementing standards, gloss bloat, they're threatening innovation.
Free innovation!
Personally I am torn. I think that MS has done some great things over the years. They have also hurt a lot of companies and done a lot of things that I feel are wrong. However I have trouble having too much sympathy for the PC industry. Many people have known about these things for years, yet they continue to support MS products.
There are other products out on the market. Give them a look. Everyone complains about how horrible MS is, and then goes and says how there is nothing else, so they have to use it. Give some of these other products a chance. If they aren't perfect work with the vendors. Heck, the earliest versions of Windows really sucked, but it has gotten better.
While I admit Microsoft is big and ugly right now, they weren't always. And it really is hard to stay on the top. I think MS saw this fact, and did everything possible to stay on top. Personally I understand this, who wouldn't want to stay #1. However to think that you did all this for the good of the industry takes some pretty big self deluding.
ok 'nuff ramblings,
-chris (gandalf@darkcorner.net)
Reminds me of the time that I was filling out some stupid form just so that I could get to a knowledge base article. There was a checkbox that basicly gave them permission to spam me if I selected it. The problem was that the form would crap out if I submitted it without the check box selected. Once I selected it, it worked. :/
This would be better flamebait if linux were actually a company trying to create innovative products but:
A. its not a company, and
2. refer to A
We have enough youth, how about a fountain of SMART?
You really don't know about DirectX, do you?
QuickTime is a video format, DirectX is a complete multimedia API. You couldn't write a game with QuickTime...
- Damnit, I'm dead Jim
That annoying P.O.S. "assistant" is based on Bob technology. That explains the extreme irritation and mental anxiety caused by even brief exposure to the f***ing thing.
-Tom
Indeed it is the a cache 22 problem. If what makes people free is making other people not free, then freedom is impossible.
There is no doubt that freedom means responsibility. Generally, trading away ones freedom for lapse of responsibility is one of those stupid things that humans just love doing (kind of like trading away your life for a pile of money).
Look at the American suing tradition, where nothing is ever ones own fault, and no one never takes resonsibility for anything. We mat not sue each other the whole time here in Europe, but instead we are always asking the government and the collective to take responsibility (and therefore freedom) away from us. It sickens me.
-
You can find the actual e-mail addy's through that page and send the note direct. If you do that (which I did) be sure to mention that you tried to send mail through the form and it appears to never have been sent.
Is that a microsoft page? Its kind of hard to tell, kinda looks like its external, not really sure about that?
Oh MAN! Don't give away the secret! Why do you think all those NT servers are out there? Think of the millions of nerds out of work, holding signs saying 'Will reboot servers for food.' You're gonna ruin it for everyone.
God help us all if the real world finds out about our 'job security.'
^_^
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
I agree. Look at how many loosers stood in line at MIDNIGHT just to buy an OS !
Feel free to moderate this down, it still doesn't change the fact that a bunch of wankers had nothing better to do at midnight.
Hmm, I wonder... If you restrict someones freedom, do you still have freedom yourself?
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
Lets see, bought dos, stole windows, bundled the two because other companies were producing better clones of DOS than the real version, stole stacker technology (then I believe actually cloned it with a different algorithm after losing the lawsuit), licensed the defragger and scan disk utilities included today (the windows 98 one is totally intel's doing).
;-)
I believe they bought the original moused wheel, and the split keyboard design, or I might count that. But no, I find nothing on this system that is innovative, except perhaps OLE (it is horribly miswritten and broken, but it was new when it came out). COM and DCOM, however, are borrowed from DCE.
It could also be shown that whenever they came out with truely _good_ products, it was to combat something that was already released by a competitor. Direct* was to fight off Apple's Quicktime APIs. Internet Explorer got a couple of hundred engineers on the project because of Netscape. Active* was a repackaging of existing technology to compete against OpenDoc and Java I believe.
No, the only thing I can think of that might be innovative that they developed in-house is Bob. That might have been done by someoen else first, but whoever that is sure isn't claiming it
What we all need to appreciate is that every $ we spend with particualar brands of goods is a vote for that particular corporation.
By never purhasing microsoft products, and influincing the others around us to do the same, we, shareholders or not, truly can influence the future of microsoft.
Remember: 1 $ = 1 Vote-=>>=-
News just in of Microsoft's latest venture
Contraceptive99 by Microsoft
Microsoft Corporation has taken another step toward dominating every aspect of
American life with the introduction of Contraceptive98, a suite of applications
designed for users who engage in sex. Microsoft has been a pioneer in
peer-to-peer connectivity and plug and play.
It believes these technologies will give it substantial leverage in penetrating the
copulation enhancement market. The product addresses two important user
concerns: the need for virus protection and the need for a firewall to ensure the
non-propagation of human beings.
The Contraceptive99 suite consists of three products:
Condom99
DeFetus 1.0 (from Sementec)
AIDScan 2.1 (from Norton Utilities)
A free copy of Intercourse Explorer 4.0 is bundled in the package. The suite also
comes in two expanded versions. Contraceptive99 Professional is the Client/Server
edition, for professionals in the sexual services sector. Contraceptive99 Small
Business Edition is a package for startups, aimed at the housewife and gigolo
niches.
While Contraceptive99 does not address nontraditional copulatory channels, future
plug-ins are planned for next year.
OPERATION: Only one node in a peer-to-peer connection needs to install the
package.
At installation, the Condom99 software checks for minimum hardware. If the user
meets the requirements, the product installs and is sufficiently scaleable to meet
most requirements. After installation, operation commences. One caution is that the
user must have sufficient RAM to complete the session. When the session is
complete, a disconnect is initiated, and the user gets the message, it is now safe to
turn off your partner.
DRAWBACKS: Usability testers report that frequent failures were a major
concern during beta testing. General Protection Fault was the most serious error
encountered. Early versions had numerous bugs, but most of these have been
eliminated. The product needs to be installed each time its used.
CONCLUSION: Contraceptive99 is a robust product. Despite its drawbacks, it
is reasonably good value for its $49.95 price tag, and is far superior to its
shareware version. Hopefully, future releases (of the software, that is) will add
missing functionality, such as Backout and Restore, uninterruptible Power Supply,
and Onboard Camera.
Microsoft flounder Bill Gates is optimistic about this venture, saying "Our
contraceptive products will help users do to each other what we've been doing to
our customers for years."
superblog.org: all your favourite blogs on o
A quick ripoff, wrong font and everything:
.gif
http://kato.iki.fi/kato/free-monopolize
The site has limits on international traffic,
so if you like it, post a(n US) mirror.
I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
I think he'd enjoy the kissing babies part a little too much.
-=>>=-
I think you're dead on in your aim here about Microsoft's goals with this 'campaign'. But they've already been caught fomenting an astroturf campaign; either they're very determined to see their strategy through to the bitter end, or they're just plain dumb. I don't think they're just plain dumb, though.
Although Barnum seems to have been more right than would be possible in a reasonable world (e.g. some serial killers get marriage proposals --serious ones -- while they're waiting for their trials), I hardly think that posting this on /. is likely to benefit them much (I think I'll fire off a letter to the editor of the local paper just to make that point). It just pisses the likes of most of us off!
Re: Clinton -- sure he's still in office, but do you think anybody has any respect for him? To a certain extent, Gates' reputation as a master businessman is part of the Microsoft mystique, so harm to that is harm to MS. Never admitting guilt, in the face of overwhelming evidence, was not the thing that protected Clinton. If anything, it hurt him. It was a combination of politics and the feeling that the offenses for which he was impeached were a) overblown and b) manufactured (yeah he lied, but they kept throwing the noose around his neck and kicking at his feet) that kept him from getting convicted not that there aren't parallels, too - I don't doubt that there is a "vast conspiracy" of companies out to get MS). My point being (not to start a flamewar about BC, but to point out that there's a very different context in the DOJ vs. MS than Ken Starr/the Republicans vs. Bill Clinton/the Democrats. So I don't think maintaining a straight face is going to help *this* Bill all that much. Especially since it's a single judge that will be making the decision this time, and one who doesn't appear to like being lied to. Judge Jackson is less subject to public pressure than the people in congress. Oh, and I note for the record that the public's opinion didn't seem to mean much to Congress during the slightly-more-recent-unpleasantness =)
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
Oh, and did anyone notice that Bill G and wife *JUST* recently, donated a billion dollars (yes, with a b) to scholarships. (The story is here). Anyone else think Bill G.'s hand was caught in the cookie jar, and he's now trying to distract as much attention before the Judge Jackson decision is made?
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
That site has been up for a while, I think.. I filled out a form to send mail to my reps saying I didn't like Microsoft, but I was oppossed to the antitrust trial. I clicked a box saying send me a copy, but I never did. I think they review the submissions rather than send 'em. Now I'm less oppossed to the trial...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
Microsoft Paper Airplane Designer. It was supposed to allow you to fold a virtual sheet of paper every which way to come up with new paper airplane designs. Then you could print a sheet with fold lines and presumably logos on the wings or whatever. I never saw the program in action, and I don't think it was very successful. However, I did think it was a cool, innovative, idea.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
Mmmmm..... yeah... well, try going to http://www.crp.org and checking out who Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers donates money to (if you don't know who they are, check out http://www.kpcb.org -- they're the venture capital firm with all the money behind Sun, AOL, etc etc), who Microsoft donates money to, and comparing and contrasting the two.
Ignore the keiretsu behind the curtain.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Has anyone noticed that "FIN" is French for "end"?
Actually, Flight Simulator was made by Simulogic, and bought by Microsoft.
I think Microsoft might have invented FUD...
-Tom
Linux is not a company, so Linux cannot innovate anything... (maybe you should innovate something)
But if you think about Linux community, here are some things to think about:
Getting usefull and powerfull software into hands of poor people (students, scientists,...)
Example: Gimp, TeX, all sort of development, utilities... Debian has more than 4000 packages FREE!!!!
"The basic functionality of Word never changes?"
WELL DUH.
Since you'll probably never believe me, I'll lay aside the fact that Word has improved remarkably - especially for Office Developers (yes - you can extend and prorgam/script office to the limit unlike others eg. staroffice).
But ofcourse the basic functionality of Word hasn't changed - it lets you type things.
Those examples of "If microsoft was *****" are so stupid.
We all know software works differently - why do you think OSS can exist in software? Earlier on, MS brought software to the masses by not charging an arm and a leg for it - but they had to protect their technologies - they couldn't just pour hotglue over it.
I don't think anyone here wants to deny Microsoft the "freedom to innovate" - if they'd actually use that freedom, instead of grabbing everyone else's innovations, dressing them up, and selling them at $179 a pop, Micros~1.oft might not have to pull stunts like this, non?
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Any scripting language (PERL, TCL/TK, Python....)
I'm forced to use IE 3.02 at work and Microsoft.com is one of the sites that regularly won't display on this browser. Numerous javascript errors and finally a nice blank white page.
I think the redmond definition of innovate is along the lines of "to increase complexity and fud until all product cease to function." At least that has been the operating principle they have been laboring under.
---------
This space intentionally left blank
You've been upgrading word _just_ to share documents with friends?
Why not just convert the documents? Hell, Word even lets you save in old word formats.
After using Unix applications for a few years now, I've found Microsoft Office and similar products to be more reliable stable and defintely efficient (meaning faster). As long as you run on a well setup windows....and especially if you use NT.
Oh, and if all you need is Word2, use WordPad - it's free with windows - the native format is RTF which never changes cause new features don't need to be added - and it has more features than Word2.
Who's denying it to them anyway? They claim a right that they deny others with their strategy of crushing smaller competitors. Non of their current products has technical advantages over its competitors. Some of these products are of high quality some aren't ('innovations' in this area are welcome as far as I'm concerned).
The things they claim are innovations are not. The two most important ones are:
- browser integration
- java API modifications
The first is a very obvious and rather succesful attempt to outcompete other browsers.
The second is violating SUN's license. In other words they stole somebodies idea and are now trying to push the real innovator (SUN) out of the market.
For all you MS haters/lovers, I have this nice ZDNet link
Jilles
Many "Freedom" advocates don't get it.
With freedom comes responsibility. They just cry "Freedom, Freedom" and just go ahead and abuse their freedom. Freedom to senslessly spam/junk mail their fellow man, freedom to tout guns all over the place, freedom to misuse capital to squash the little guy/competitor.
Freedom does not mean that you can just do whatever you like! Freedom means that you are responsible enough to know yourself what you can or may do.
These people make freedom just another f-word, imho. It's a sad, sad, thing. Jón
and try to copy the true innovations. well i just ignore them till it is drier.
This article details recently uncovered email evidence, which provides a rare inside look at how Microsoft uses it's PR department. Back in October when the AOL/Netscape deal came out, they immediately decided to start a PR campaign to show that the AOL deal "undermines the core of the case." Top Microsoft officials ordered PR people to orchestrated a seemingly independent and spontaneous campaign, using it's "friends in politics" (Microsoft is by far is the biggest 'contributor' to various politicians election campaigns - Microsoft-sympathetic comittee members recently even tried to nuke the DOJ antitrust division's financing - talk about interference with criminal justice), "sympathetic columnists" (paid articles?) to pointedly manipulate the public opinion. Once again.
--Coke
It sure is! But let us watch out- Just because microsoft may fall doesnt mean we should get complaicent. For example, lets hypothetically say that people finally decide to use an alternative operating system rather than windows. Lets say Linux. Who is to say that one of the distributors for linux will not carry on from where microsoft left. There will always be monopolisers, and as far as they go Microsoft are quite controllable - By taking them out we could cause an outbreak of sub-monopolies, pulling us in a multitude of chaotic directions. We would be worse off without microsoft.
-=>>=-
A recent experience made me realise that Microsoft have an uphill battle in trying to get the public to "rally 'round" them - the scene with Bill Gates in the South Park movie got a cheer! Lots of people really don't like MS, but are forced to live with their software...
You're putting the horse before the carriage here in terms of taking things out of context. Sure, in the big picture laws are put into place because of bills from elected people being passed. However, in the context in which I was speaking, Microsoft isn't going to get a re-election before the verdict.
Furthermore, judges are not voted in by public opinion, as this would sway their decisions, of course.
It seems clear that Microsoft's vision of the software industry is one where Microsoft owns all the land and the other software companies are the serfs, magnitudes smaller in size, working on their niche products (all with Microsoft's operating systems, server tools and development tools) and indirectly supporting Microsoft's monopoly.
It seems that Microsoft has to control the ENTIRE would-be commodity market, the software that everyone needs (OS's, office automation, browsers). Of course, since people want "integration", if anyone was able to take over the market on any of those things, they'd have a huge success on being successful with the other two. That's why they have to do anything they can to protect themselves.
Microsoft is, however, willing to stay out of the small domain-specific markets (in their terms "supporting a competitive environment). In a truly competitive market, however, anyone can build and sell the commodity and they're incredibly cheap. Having to spend $100 for an upgrade on just an OS (which really should be invisible and free, just a part of the computer) every two to three years is just wrong.
They don't. Infact, one jost got moderated down for being off topic, as did onother severl weeks ago, and I wouldn't be supprised if this one did too, it certainly deserves it. Usually they stay put, even though some of them deserve to go down.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
Microsoft is trying to establish this twisted form of "Democracy" to woo us into a false sense of security. This lays a perfect foundation for their world domination plans, in which we will still THINK we are having a say, even if ultimately every decision is made by our despotic leader, Gill Bates. (Gill, by the way, is Microsofts next secret weapon to lure in the Male computing community... I'll tell you about her another day)
-=>>=-
"The FIN is a non-partisan,grassroots network of citizens and businesses "
Can something be grassroot and still be organized by a company with enough money to run the economy of a small country?
you mean it isn't a joke?
Freedom, freedom, freedom. For some twisted reason the freedom-card is most often pulled by an abuser. Spammers rage about freedom of (sic)speach, fundamentals about freedom of religion, nationalists about freedom in general, US government about free world and now Microsoft about freedom to innovate.
What's common with these all? Only they have the freedom but if you disagree with them, they go crazy and demand you to drop all your own freedom and personal choice.
Let's have a look at Microsoft. They are rich, powerful and big. There shouldn't be any problems for them to innovate. Just use enough money and brain power and come up with new revolutionary products. It shouldn't be a problem for them to make a browser and compete fairly in the free market.
But for Microsoft freedom is bad. Freedom to choose is bad because customers may choose the wrong product. So the competitor has to be crushed and what's a better way to do it than waving the flag of freedom?
I don't think that's a realistic option for any company that's publicly traded, unless they feel like a shareholder's lawsuit.
--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
I'd like to take a leading role in the "Freedom to Innovate Network." I believe that the freedom to innovate is critical for all companies, Microsoft and others.
I believe the first step this organization should take would be to ensure that strict and severe measures are taken against Microsoft, so that Microsoft is required to innovate if it desires to keep its monopoly. I believe that predatory tactics such as buying then disbanding companies which threaten to come up with new, potentially-competitive products, and maintaining a chokehold on the industry by letting others blaze trails then underselling them, are completely contrary to any interpretation of the "Freedom to Innovate."
Can anyone think of any innovative product to come from microsoft?
This isn`t meant as flamebait, just a genuine question.
Dear Senator or Representative (personalized for each recipient):
I'm writing you as a consequence of a web page (http://www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/) set up by Microsoft corporation to encourage innovation in the software industry. This is a laudable goal, although I'm surprised to see it supported by Microsoft. Microsoft is not widely regarded as an innovative force in the software industry. Rather than designing, implementing, and releasing innovative products at a competitive price, Microsoft has instead chosen to consolidate its position in the industry by threatening, colluding against, and sometimes outright buying its competitors while providing substandard products in terms of security, usability, and compatibility with accepted technical standards. By doing so, they have captured 90% of the market for desktop computer software in this country, and 25-33% of the market for server software.
If a car company acted in this manner, or perhaps the telephone company, you can bet that they would be under investigation by Federal and state anti-trust regulators. And as it turns out, Microsoft _is_ under investigation as well by the US Department of Justice (DOJ). Although it appears that Microsoft set up their "Freedom to Innovate" site in order to marshal grass-roots support for their position in the DOJ's case against them, I am using the site to send you the opposite message: please ensure freedom to innovate in the software industry for _all companies_ by supporting the DOJ case against Microsoft. Only when the software industry is free from fear of reprisals by Microsoft can true innovation occur.
Innovation is already starting to happen - for example, many computer makers such as IBM, Dell, and Compaq have begun to offer Linux as an option on their machines as their customers have demanded. Do you think that they would have been allowed to do this by Microsoft if the trial were not occurring? In the past Microsoft has threatened computer makers with being blacklisted from selling Microsoft windows on their machines if they also sold products from Microsoft's competition, such as Netscape. Please encourage this recent trickle of innovation to become the torrent that our nation needs - support the DOJ in their efforts to get a just verdict and reasonable remedies for the harm Microsoft has done the software industry.
Thank you for your time,
etc., etc.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Apparently my equiptment was to powerful for the software. I was prompted with Buffer overflow errors galore, as well as a sore willy.
-=>>=-
I wholeheartedly agree. Microsoft should have a freedom to innovate. But remember that freedom to innovate != freedom to dominate. I remember a time in the early and mid 80's when I actually respected Microsoft for innovating. Sure, their products may not have been completely original but they were trying to open computing to the masses...and that was still a new idea.
The problem is that MS has gone from innovator to dominator, and they are slowly strangling the computer industry. MS essentially sees all other software companies as competition, and rather than compete, MS would rather buy or crush them. If you look closely at Microsofts history, you'll find dozens of software companies that have been bought out, and hundreds of products or ideas that have either been "borrowed" or blatantly stolen. MS doesn't compete, it destroys.
The hipocrisy of Microsofts statement is that they want to keep their dominance of the computer industry, but the lack of competition stifles innovation. Microsoft knows this, and they want this. Innovation is Microsofts worst enemy. The Internet was a major innovation in computer communication. The OSS movement is a huge innovation in software distribution. Java was a big innovation in the war against platorm dependence. Fact is, every time another "innovation" occurs MS is forced to fight even harder to maintain it's position. MS isn't interested in innovation, this is just a desperate shot by a company that has finally realized that it's days are numbered.
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
Word! Microsoft has always seemed to operate under the "You can't beat them, so buy them." That's not innovation. That's being a bully because you have money. I bet they consider every new version off office an "Innovation." I think the best quote I read was that "In the past 10 years, Microsoft hasn't changed the word processor at all. They have changed the framework (read: OS) that the word processor exists in over and over. But the basic functionality never changes. If microsoft was the electric company, every 2 years they'd change the voltage and frequency of the power they delivered and you'd need to either replace all of your appliances or buy a voltage/frequency rectifier to keep using the ones you had.
Want to know the Democrats interest in all this? They saw a big, fat, rich target to EXTORT money from. They figured that Bill Gates, like nearly every other Big Business leader, would roll over and throw cash their way (roughly half of Big Business PAC $$$ goes to Democrats, give or take a little depending who they think will win in a given year). They didn't figure a registered Democrat like Bill Gates (the guy even gave money to population control groups) would fight back, and they're at least a little nervous that they've royally pissed off the richest man in the world.
Microsoft has been blessed with largely incompetent competitors for years (Apple, pre-Jobs; Wordperfect, after Novell ran them into the ground; etc). Now they have Linux to deal with, and their usual strategy of going for market share by undercutting the competition won't work anymore. But it'll be a hollow victory if we have to rely on Big Brother to win.
Again, read "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand for a good description of why government coercion over the economy is Bad.
Hehehe... just when you thnk it can't get any better. Oh boy... I just love the flag ... the appeal to the share holders to petition for the freedom of MS..oh boy... I'm surprised they don't have a midi file of God Bless America playing. Poor poor MS... you are just soooo opressed (sp)
So what's next... are we going to see Bill Gates marching in parades and waving the flag... or maybe an ad blitz of Bill kissing babies and opening doors for little old ladies. Oh yeah..GOD BLESS AMERICA..sheesh... if MS has any freedoms taken away they will only have themselves to blame.
Plainly, Microsoft wouldn't know innovation if the company was biten by it in a sensitive area. Microsoft is hoping to continue its business plan of the eighties. This, not linux, will finally do them in. The DOJ case is merely an interesting event, but certainly an empty one.
Customers are Microsoft's real problem. There's a SUBSTANTIAL negative buzz about the company (remember the South Park movie?) which will be its
death eventually.
As the world moves to web applications, the choice of OS become less critical while the browser assumes a "desktop" like aspect. Which browser runs on more OS's? Can Microsoft take its deeply embedded browser and port it to other OS's? No.
Remember, Microsoft sells a platform. As the platform because the web, Redmond's importance will be trivialized. Soon (five years), "windows programming" will be a marginalized skill, much like VMS programming was five years ago.
So I say, let Microsoft embed IE into the W2K kernel. They are doing themselves in.
Sounds too incredible to believe? Just watch, code, and wait.
No, freedom IS the right to do whatever you like. That is what it means.
However, freedom is also the right for everybody else to do what they like. Putting a gun to somebodies head and telling them what to do is not an act of freedom, even if it happens to be what you feel like doing that morning.
Same could be said for microsoft...
-
There's a site that discusses this very question, but the link's on my home PC and I'm at work now. Check again later.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
I support Ultrix, Linux, NT, Win 95, and VMS in a large user enviroment. Out of all of these the biggest part of my time is spent tuning and keeping the NT and 95 machines running and crash free. If I didn't have these machines, I'd probably be forced to install some microsoft software just to justify my job... ;)
In a time when Microsoft is greatly unpopular with the people, they are trying to get them to rally against the DOJ?
Either way, since when do laws have anything to do with the majority's opinion? I didn't even realise it had to do with anyone's opinion. The law is the law, and if the DOJ establishes that Microsoft had (not has) a monopoly in the judges eyes, then Microsoft is going to be punished.
However, what the ruling may be may be affected by public opinion. How much, is something that Microsoft is hoping for.
Of course, anyone who has been hurt by Microsoft realises that they are stifling the competition's right to innovate by creating proprietary standards. Although it doesn't get posted to slashdot, there are some pro Micro-innovation sites around on the Internet. Some of them articulate MS-truth (ActiveTruth?) quite vividly.
Interesting indeed, why do they feel they are held back. I think they have still as good possibility as all others for new innovations and the even have the resources for huge research.
Still lately M$-attitude has improved a lot. Specs for office formats etc. have been released to public, I just hope it also means that new versions would be compatible. Nowadays they also admit security flaws and are keen to provide users with patches.
Win2k includes many huge improvements ddns, kerberos, mount points, etc. I just don't like the way they are implemented because you can't take the advance of them if you are using w2k workstations and unix servers. Could be they are really pushing w2k to replace unix on server side. Let's hope they will provide us with specs.
For the second time now, I have attempted to submit a comment at Microsoft's "Freedom to Innovate" site, to tell them exactly what I think about MS, innovation and fair competition (to summarize, it makes my blood boil when they claim to support any such thing).
Every time I hit the button to submit my comment, I get an HTTP error as a response! Now that is truly symbolic of everything about Microsoft.
I wonder if they some AI at the other end, which detects whether the comment was negative, and if so generates a phony error, so they can pretend they never got it.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
The US media may be computer illiterate, but this is their bread and butter. I can hear the interview now:
Stuffed Shirt: The FIN believes that [MS pitch].
Interviewer: But isn't the FIN entirely funded by Microsoft? Aren't you just spouting Microsoft's official line?
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
Freedom to imitate
Freedom to irritate
Freedom to immolate
Freedom to infiltrate
Freedom to impregnate
Freedom to indoctrinate
Freedom to inculcate
Freedom to incorporate
Freedom to isolate
Freedom to inflate
Freedom to infuriate
Freedom to intimidate
Freedom to inundate
and my fave:
Freedom to inseminate
Any more?
Bill Gates has learned a lesson that Bill Clinton came very close to learning:
Never, EVER, admit ANY guilt. Period. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to your guilt, still endeavor to find ways to bring the methods and motives of your accusers into question.
Bill Gates didn't put up that "Freedom to Innovate" page for us, although we're giving him a lot of free press by talking about it. (As P.T. Barnum once said, "Any publicity is good publicity -- as long as they spell my name right.") No, he put it up there for people who *will* be swayed by it, and for people in whom it *might* cast a reasonable doubt. These are voters who might be ticked off if their elected officials allow the government to take strong action against Microsoft -- and so Microsoft wins itself some safety.
Here's the most interesting thing to note, however: Notice that the Microsoft "Freedom to Innovate" page says that it was last updated on September 13. Do you honestly think that Microsoft would change anything if they honestly thought they were going to win the court case? Doesn't this thing sound like an effort to "rally the troops" and prepare for some expected damage control?
BTW, good one.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
I don't see one bit of similarity between Bill Gates' and Bill Clinton's situations. Maybe your only source of news is the American Spectator, or worse, CNN. Evidence of material harm is being presented in the DOJ case.
You libertarians/republicans really need to find somebody other than Clinton to bash.
What? You don't consider a free operating system with free software that doesn't crash every 5 minutes innovative?
Look around, these are the people who innovate, not the horrendous Microsoft employees who have created a kernel so disgusting that no one at their company fully understands it, and even if they did, they can't take care of any bugs in it because most of their software actually relies on the bugs to run "properly". I'm not joking.
Thinking differently from the perspective that Microsoft is detrimental the future of computing would be wrong.
It's not Microsoft bashing, it's the truth - their business practices resemble those of fascism, basically they have no problem with anyone who doesn't stand in the way of their total domination of computers.
Maybe you think that innovation means controlling the populous with a monopoly, but I happen to think that it means making good, free software that can evolve - Open Source.
That's true innovation - that's what the future should be. No more worrying about hidden Crypto keys in your OS, or wondering why you get a blue screen everytime you leave you computer running for more than an hour. If there were a bug like that in an Open Source OS, you could just submit a bug report and it's pretty much guarunteed that it'll be fixed within the week. Sounds pretty good, especially when you compare it to Microsoft's track record.
Win98 shipped with over 2000 known bugs - is that innovation?
Basically, anyone who is pro-Microsoft might want to take a look at www.fascism.theman.bigbrother.evil.gov, it would be right up their alley.
---
What Microsoft forgets that it has in many ways, some ethical and some unethical killed off its competition. The company I work for has been in the past a target of veiled threats from MS... "Release product A and we might just be forced to release a free version of product B which will cost you so many millions of dollars in sales". Innovation goes both ways. This is the sad thing that Microsoft forgets all about. MS product managers are trained to assimililate and eliminate threats made to their product line.
REDMOND (Reuters).
In a surprise announcement today, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) threatened to create innovative products. "Our customers have said they want innovation," said a Microsoft spokesperson. "We will now make innovative products."
According to analysts, this could send shock waves through the PC industry. "We rely on them to follow our code of honor," said a disgruntled industry leader, who preferred to remain anonymous. "We've been making the same hardware for 20 years. What will we do now?" According to an analyst, there is no skepticism in an industry used to a flood of vaporware announcements. "We have had many false alarms from Microsoft before," said the Anonymous Analyst. "However, this time they are REALLY serious."
A key distinguishing feature this time around is a stunning move by Microsoft to create a 'Freedom to Innovate Network', known as FIN.
Many industry observers pointed out the resemblence to a previous Microsoft initiative. "Earlier, they had formed a top secret organization called 'Freedom to Innovate Bugs', and guess how that turned out," said another insider. "Naturally, we can't dismiss this as vaporware. The coincidence is practically spooky." Especially the acronym, he added.
Microsoft spokesmen declined to comment on backward compatibility problems with the new trend towards innovation.
---
L.
Here is the comment I sent to Microsoft...
I would be more supportive of Microsofts freedom to innovate if microsoft was more supportive of my freedom to stay with a stable system.
Incompatible file formats have forced me through various upgrades to remain able to share files with my colleagues for no benefit to me (I need no more from a word processor than I had with Microsoft Word 2)
I also disagree with innovation when it gets in the way of shipping a stable, reliable, efficient product.
Please remember that there are two kinds of innovation, the good and the bad.
-- Don't believe everything you read, hear or think