The DOS deal with IBM was definitely a windfall for Microsoft, but it did NOT make the company.
I have to disagree here. Microsoft was big in BASIC, sure, -- the Apple// series had MS (Applesoft) BASIC in ROM, but I'm hard pressed to think of anyone else. I don't recall it being native to the Atari systems, the Commodore systems, or any of the lesser early, popular computing platforms. But perhaps it was a well-kept secret.
In any case, however, the DOS monopoly is what allowed Microsoft to have the funding to endure its errors -- errors so egregious that any other software company would have been put out of business due to lack of income.
Do any of you remember, back in 1985, when Bill Gates was quoted in Byte magazine extoling the virtues of tiled (as opposed to overlapping) windows (in Windows 1.0)? If Microsoft didn't have DOS supporting it, it would have folded after that sickening attempt at a GUI. Even the 2.X series wasn't all that great. I think Excel was the primary reason it sold at all (with a runtime version of Windows 2.0, no less).
Every Microsoft product is fairly worthless until version 3.0. But NO other software company has the revenue stream from an OS monopoly which allows it the luxury of waiting for the third version of the software to come out before it starts seeing any real profit from it!
And let's not forget Microsoft Bob -- Microsoft's first and last attempt at real innovation (unless you want to include (*snicker*) Microsoft's revolutionary ClearType(TM) technology). What other company could invest so much time and effort into a product that sold maybe a hundred copies worldwide? Answer: one with a monopoly on the OS!
So, while I can agree that Microsoft certainly didn't pop up into existence as a result of DOS (as it was clearly doing BASIC interpreter work from the days of the Altair), I think that DOS did in fact make the company what it is today -- or, at least, it granted BG and MS the funding to show their true colors.
And, so, the PC market would have been drastically different had IBM not licensed DOS from Microsoft. Not necessarily better, mind you -- but definitely different.
I just want to add or rehash a few points to/of this discussion.
There is a very serious problem which Slashdot will face if it continues to pursue this. And that problem is simply this: a copyright holder has the right to restrict the copying of his works. Any copyright holder has this right -- it's the right to copy (or not). These laws are designed to protect the authors of various works, and the protection is as much extended to you and me as it is to Microsoft or any other author. This is something which seems to be completely misunderstood by various quarters of the Internet.
I have seen in a few places much reaction and claims to "freedom of speech" when dealing with copyrighted works. While everyone is entitled to his opinion, and he has the right to express it, he does not have the right to take another's copyrighted work and publish it. Rant about Microsoft all you want. Microsoft deserves nothing less than tons of ranting (and quite a lot more). But the fact of law is simply that everyone needs to play by the rules. Fairness, not favortism, is the intent of the laws here.
Those same copyright laws that protect Microsoft are the same ones that protect the open source copyleft. As the author of a work, you have the right to limit or allow distribution of that work in any (legal) way that you desire. It doesn't matter if the work is source code, an essay, a novel, a movie, a television show, an encyclopedia, or anything else that can be published. Nor does it matter what your opinion is of the author. If it's OK for the Open Source Movement (OSM) to violate copyright, then it's OK for Microsoft to ignore the GPL. Is that what you really want? The law is as applicable to Microsoft as it is to you and me. If Microsoft were to take some GPL'ed work, modify it, and redistribute it in binary form only, for a hefty fee, naturally, Microsoft would find itself faced with another lawsuit -- and probably quite quickly. We all know that someone, somewhere, is itching for such a fight against Microsoft, and I suspect that most copyleft holders would use the copyright laws to protect their own works. It is their legal right and moral responsibility (as open source advocates) to do so.
As a community, the Open Source Movement can defeat Microsoft and the other Big Brothers of Computing. But it cannot be done by violating laws. Any time someone (in the OSM or anywhere else) violates the law, it encourages those making laws to make even tougher laws. Why do you think we have the DMCA? The Internet is far too often used by those who want to violate copyright laws to try to evade them through anonymity. And I suspect that a significant number of slashdotters do fall, or have fallen in the past, into this category.
Fighting the DMCA, or trying to get it declared unconstitutional, simply will not work. Congress has the right to pass copyright laws -- it's in the US Constitution. Just because most of us don't have copyrightable works doesn't mean that we don't enjoy the protections that copyright laws provide. All we have to do is make something worthwhile and copyright it -- the protection is there for everyone, not just big business. And be aware that even unpublished works have copyright protection -- the author of a work is protected by copyright by virtue of his being the author; publication requires filing a copyright, but an unpublished work needn't be filed at all to enjoy copyright protection.
It is important not to get caught up in this particular trap. This is not a fight that the OSM and/or Slashdot needs to pursue, because it is not that important in the grand scheme of things -- or, even, at all, really. The fact that Microsoft has a valid copyright claim on the document itself and has notified Slashdot of the violation is the only reason Slashdot needs to justify removing the copyrighted information (only). And now, with the DMCA, Slashdot has a legal responsibility to do so. Just pull the actual copyrighted material -- leave everything else alone -- and Slashdot will come out smelling like roses, legally.
Regardless of your opinion of Microsoft (or the truth about Microsoft), respect the copyright laws -- at least, in public forums. Privately, of course, just don't get caught. *grin*
I dunno, an income tax for churches seems kinda like a money making scheme to me. Seems the Catholic and Lutheran churches are living pretty high on the hog in Germany. Those two churches own more land than any company or organization in Germany except the German government. And it was the NAZIS who originally instituted that tax for those two churches, to buy them off. If the leaders of those churches had any shame at all for the activities of their predecessors for allowing the Holocaust to occur... well, if it were me, I'd have refused to accept any such money collected! But, we are talking millions and millions of deutschmarks, and, well... it's nice work if you can get it. Furthermore, German COURTS OF LAW have recognized Scientology as a religion. Dozens of times. What form of money-making is outlawed? Scientology derives income from services and from materials (books, tapes, etc.). Now, surely certain jurisdictions have tried to outlaw the ways that Scientology promotes itself and gets income, but these were not illegal until those jurisdictions decided to try to find ways to destroy Scientology -- and even German courts have found that such laws were themselves unconsitutional! So, please, enlighten us.
Slashdot Mirror
The DOS deal with IBM was definitely a windfall for Microsoft, but it did NOT make the company.
I have to disagree here. Microsoft was big in BASIC, sure, -- the Apple // series had MS (Applesoft) BASIC in ROM, but I'm hard pressed to think of anyone else. I don't recall it being native to the Atari systems, the Commodore systems, or any of the lesser early, popular computing platforms. But perhaps it was a well-kept secret.
In any case, however, the DOS monopoly is what allowed Microsoft to have the funding to endure its errors -- errors so egregious that any other software company would have been put out of business due to lack of income.
Do any of you remember, back in 1985, when Bill Gates was quoted in Byte magazine extoling the virtues of tiled (as opposed to overlapping) windows (in Windows 1.0)? If Microsoft didn't have DOS supporting it, it would have folded after that sickening attempt at a GUI. Even the 2.X series wasn't all that great. I think Excel was the primary reason it sold at all (with a runtime version of Windows 2.0, no less).
Every Microsoft product is fairly worthless until version 3.0. But NO other software company has the revenue stream from an OS monopoly which allows it the luxury of waiting for the third version of the software to come out before it starts seeing any real profit from it!
And let's not forget Microsoft Bob -- Microsoft's first and last attempt at real innovation (unless you want to include (*snicker*) Microsoft's revolutionary ClearType(TM) technology). What other company could invest so much time and effort into a product that sold maybe a hundred copies worldwide? Answer: one with a monopoly on the OS!
So, while I can agree that Microsoft certainly didn't pop up into existence as a result of DOS (as it was clearly doing BASIC interpreter work from the days of the Altair), I think that DOS did in fact make the company what it is today -- or, at least, it granted BG and MS the funding to show their true colors.
And, so, the PC market would have been drastically different had IBM not licensed DOS from Microsoft. Not necessarily better, mind you -- but definitely different.
Hey, guys,
I just want to add or rehash a few points to/of this discussion.
There is a very serious problem which Slashdot will face if it continues to pursue this. And that problem is simply this: a copyright holder has the right to restrict the copying of his works. Any copyright holder has this right -- it's the right to copy (or not). These laws are designed to protect the authors of various works, and the protection is as much extended to you and me as it is to Microsoft or any other author. This is something which seems to be completely misunderstood by various quarters of the Internet.
I have seen in a few places much reaction and claims to "freedom of speech" when dealing with copyrighted works. While everyone is entitled to his opinion, and he has the right to express it, he does not have the right to take another's copyrighted work and publish it. Rant about Microsoft all you want. Microsoft deserves nothing less than tons of ranting (and quite a lot more). But the fact of law is simply that everyone needs to play by the rules. Fairness, not favortism, is the intent of the laws here.
Those same copyright laws that protect Microsoft are the same ones that protect the open source copyleft. As the author of a work, you have the right to limit or allow distribution of that work in any (legal) way that you desire. It doesn't matter if the work is source code, an essay, a novel, a movie, a television show, an encyclopedia, or anything else that can be published. Nor does it matter what your opinion is of the author. If it's OK for the Open Source Movement (OSM) to violate copyright, then it's OK for Microsoft to ignore the GPL. Is that what you really want? The law is as applicable to Microsoft as it is to you and me. If Microsoft were to take some GPL'ed work, modify it, and redistribute it in binary form only, for a hefty fee, naturally, Microsoft would find itself faced with another lawsuit -- and probably quite quickly. We all know that someone, somewhere, is itching for such a fight against Microsoft, and I suspect that most copyleft holders would use the copyright laws to protect their own works. It is their legal right and moral responsibility (as open source advocates) to do so.
As a community, the Open Source Movement can defeat Microsoft and the other Big Brothers of Computing. But it cannot be done by violating laws. Any time someone (in the OSM or anywhere else) violates the law, it encourages those making laws to make even tougher laws. Why do you think we have the DMCA? The Internet is far too often used by those who want to violate copyright laws to try to evade them through anonymity. And I suspect that a significant number of slashdotters do fall, or have fallen in the past, into this category.
Fighting the DMCA, or trying to get it declared unconstitutional, simply will not work. Congress has the right to pass copyright laws -- it's in the US Constitution. Just because most of us don't have copyrightable works doesn't mean that we don't enjoy the protections that copyright laws provide. All we have to do is make something worthwhile and copyright it -- the protection is there for everyone, not just big business. And be aware that even unpublished works have copyright protection -- the author of a work is protected by copyright by virtue of his being the author; publication requires filing a copyright, but an unpublished work needn't be filed at all to enjoy copyright protection.
It is important not to get caught up in this particular trap. This is not a fight that the OSM and/or Slashdot needs to pursue, because it is not that important in the grand scheme of things -- or, even, at all, really. The fact that Microsoft has a valid copyright claim on the document itself and has notified Slashdot of the violation is the only reason Slashdot needs to justify removing the copyrighted information (only). And now, with the DMCA, Slashdot has a legal responsibility to do so. Just pull the actual copyrighted material -- leave everything else alone -- and Slashdot will come out smelling like roses, legally.
Regardless of your opinion of Microsoft (or the truth about Microsoft), respect the copyright laws -- at least, in public forums. Privately, of course, just don't get caught. *grin*
I dunno, an income tax for churches seems kinda like a money making scheme to me. Seems the Catholic and Lutheran churches are living pretty high on the hog in Germany. Those two churches own more land than any company or organization in Germany except the German government. And it was the NAZIS who originally instituted that tax for those two churches, to buy them off. If the leaders of those churches had any shame at all for the activities of their predecessors for allowing the Holocaust to occur... well, if it were me, I'd have refused to accept any such money collected! But, we are talking millions and millions of deutschmarks, and, well... it's nice work if you can get it. Furthermore, German COURTS OF LAW have recognized Scientology as a religion. Dozens of times. What form of money-making is outlawed? Scientology derives income from services and from materials (books, tapes, etc.). Now, surely certain jurisdictions have tried to outlaw the ways that Scientology promotes itself and gets income, but these were not illegal until those jurisdictions decided to try to find ways to destroy Scientology -- and even German courts have found that such laws were themselves unconsitutional! So, please, enlighten us.