By the time we actually get to the damage stage and what should be done it is very possible Microsoft won't be dependant on Windows at all.
If you are using that as a reason why they judge won't punish Microsoft, you are wrong. What happens in the future can never change what happened in the past.
This is really a non-event. The only people who didn't see this coming were the ones that don't know anything about Microsoft beside their product came preloaded on their machine.
Apparently, from reading the/. posts this morning *still*, there are quite a few techie people who not only didn't see this coming, but still refuse to believe that it happened.
By the time we actually get to the damage stage and what should be done it is very possible Microsoft won't be dependant on Windows at all.
If you are using that as a reason why they judge won't punish Microsoft, you are wrong. What happens in the future can never change what happened in the past.
This doesn't mean much at the moment (Score:1) by MISplice on 10:27 AM November 8th, 1999 EST (#12) (User Info) http://members.xoom.com/MISplice/ This is just a finding of fact and does really mean anything right now. By the time we actually get to the damage stage and what should be done it is very possible Microsoft won't be dependant on Windows at all. As far as their investors go, they knew what Microsoft was/is and their stock price won't be affected that much in the long term as long as they continue to make a profit and keep the shareholders happy. This is really a non-event. The only people who didn't see this coming were the ones that don't know anything about Microsoft beside their product came preloaded on their machine.
Apparently, from reading the/. posts this morning *still*, there are quite a few techie people who not only didn't see this coming, but still refuse to believe that it happened.
You know, I can't help but wonder what would have happened if Compaq or Dell had had the balls to tell Microsoft to get stuffed, they'd buy windows on the retail market and install it themselves. I mean, come on -- do you REALLY think Redmond would have followed through, and cut off a fifth of their revenue?
Yes. It may have meant a 5th of their revenue *then*, but Microsoft was worrying about the future. If they would have allowed it then, it would have made it easier for Compaq to replace Windows with a different OS later.
Do you really think that Compaq and others would have been able to pick up millions copies of Windows at retail $$, and still be able to compete. That would have raised the price of computers by at least $150. And then, do you really think that Microsoft wouldn't have known it, and prevented distributors from reselling to Compaq? Yeah right, that's the most absurd thing I've heard all morning.
IBM could have easily gone with another OS oh so many years ago. It was their choice.
Really, it was their choice? Okay, prove it too me. Which paragraph in the FOF does Judge Jackson state that IBM could have chosen to continue to preload OS/2 if they wanted too?
We are beyond the stage where groundless rumors and opinions carry any weight. Take a piece of advice from me. From here on out, we'd all tend to believe you guys more if you'd include references to the FOF that back you up. If you can't, then what you say is just plain, fat lies.
They certainly are greedy, (as are all businesses) but they acquired their position by developing products their customers want and marketing them effectively.
Might I recommend you read the FOF's
Judge Jackson does quite well in describing how "effectively" Microsoft marketed their products. In fact, he agrees that Microsoft's marketing of their products was adversaly opposite to how the products would have been marketed in a market that put the best interests of consumers first.
Truth and an important fact is that we doneed Mozilla to succede. Personal computing now is not a standalone desktop in an attic: Linux (or any other *nix) needsa rock-solid browser, maybe even morethan multiple desktop environments and window managers.
I'm certainly believe that with all my heart. And I think that when Mozilla is released we'll have it. And I think it won't be as big a problem to get people to use Mozilla as you think.
Microsoft will be prevented from forcing IE on OEM's and IAP's. We'll see more of them using Mozilla as their browser, that'll result in more people writing real web pages. And life will be good.
Instead of babbering non-sense, let's see some facts to back up what you claim above. Just show me one quote by just one of the kernel developers and I'll believe you.
How about all the ones that inclue the phrase "a certain small Redmond based OS"? Geeze...there's thousands of those...Face it, all this Linux zealot are out there screaming about how cool they are, and they *still* can't back it up.
Sorry to burst your bubble but not everyone who has some hot air and speacks of Linux is a Linux developer. There are lot's of idiots continually blowing a lot of hot air around too. But I don't take that as Microsoft's official position.
If you want to claim that one of the Linux developers actually made that claim, you'll have to show me a quote from a developer listed in the CREDITS file or other valid source. Anyone else is just being a nuisence.
If it wren't for Microsoft, we'd have much better processors by now.
Right...I bet you believe in Santa Claus, too...
We now have the FOF to go by. It's no longer rumor and hearsay. I recommend downloading the FOF and reading it yourself. Nothing else really matters.
And yes, the Judge found that Microsoft had wrongfully inhibited Intels freedoms to develop better processers. We have all been damaged in the processor market by lower quality/preforming chips, because Microsoft deemed the innovations a threat to their dominance.
purposely harming consumers
Funny, I don't see anyone with broken kneecaps due to a MS OS...
I hope that's a figure of speech, or something. It is really far out to define harm as just broken kneecaps. Then we'd have this in a murder trial, "No, your honour, I did not harm the murdered victim. Both his kneecaps are still intact."
But the Judge has determined that Microsoft's actions have harmed consumers. In not just one way, but many numerous ways. Consumers were hurt when they had to have a browser integrated with Windows when they didn't want one. They were hurt when OEM's weren't able to make PC's easier to use then Microsoft allowed. And many others. They are all documented in the FOF. And Judge Jackson determined that they were able to successfully due this only because they had no competitors.
Note that it is not wrong to not have competition. It is wrong however, to use your position to harm comsumers and deny others the freedom to innovate.
when it benefited them
As any other company would do! All you Linux people seem to forget that if we did a s/Sun/Microsoft/g on the past few years, we'd all be griping about how evil Sun was...quit picking on MS just because they got lucky.
I think this is the first point in this post that you actually said something good. You are right, if it were Sun, or AOL, or Red Hat, or any other company that violated the law in the way Microsoft has, then they would be in Microsoft's place in court. No one is above the law, not even Microsoft.
The only thing that matters here is cold, hard facts. Judge Jackson gave them to use. If you disagree with them, then I ask you, along with Microsoft, "Show me the facts." Opinion doesn't matter here. Hypothetical situations are of no concern. Theories and ideas play no part of this. It is solely about facts, and facts alone.
I'd be more then willing to concede with you any single point that you can back up with a fact. So far, I've seen no one on Microsoft's side, not even Microsoft themselves, be able to use one single fact to prove their case. Every single fact is against Microsoft. Every single one. I dare you, prove me wrong.
The WWW is starting to stand for Won't Work Well. Well, it's THEIR throats they're utting: I ain't going to do any worse for not having the opportunity to be advertised to, but thye'll be MUH worse if I make my buying decisions in their self-imposed silence.
The web should, no *must* be browser independent. It should be standards dependent. If it makes a difference what web browser you use, then someone has abused the web.
I use IE now, because it is the newest Windows browser. I use it in the same way I'd buy a 99 Ford model car because Chevy hadn't released a new model for 2 years to make their 2000 models irresistable. Driving a Ford this year shouldn't prevent me from replacing it with a Chevy next year. And likewise, I should be able to pop out IE 5 and pop in Mozilla without noticing a difference in functionality.
If I do, then the one that's not standards compliant is *wrong* and will be disposed of as quickly as possible. I think that a lot of other people/companies think the same way.
And as you mentioned, if they don't, then they are the ones that are losing. If I am not able to buy a ticket for Northwest online because they aren't out to serve *me*, well, then there are plenty of other airlines to go to.
No, Linux invented that. The developers have been promising a MS killer. Funny, MS is still doing just fine. This little ruling will do nothing to hold them back.
Instead of babbering non-sense, let's see some facts to back up what you claim above. Just show me one quote by just one of the kernel developers and I'll believe you.
Also, the case has nothing to do with Linux getting more marketshare then Windows. It has to do with Microsoft's anti-competitive practices which harmed customers. For instance, preventing Intel for innovating by making a much better chip that results a non-Windows API. If it wren't for Microsoft, we'd have much better processors by now. Also, their actions, purposely harming consumers when it benefited them, in the areas of streaming media, web browsers, and OEM licensing.
No, the case isn't about marketshare. Linux can take over the market on it's own strength. We don't need a court case for that.
As long as they have a privacy statement? Doesn't that maybe need something particular added on to it, like "An *appropriate* privacy statement"?
Well, I think that a privacy statement is legally binding. So if they say they won't use data collected to track you, and they do, then they are liable for damages.
The important thing is that the have a privacy statement. It is up to *you* to read it and determine if it is appropriate for you. If it isn't, then you don't have anything to do with them.
Those who invest in companies without research deserve what they get.
I agree. Having strict rules may keep out scammers, but it'll also keep out legitimate companies. I think the best defense is the one employed currently. Lot's of research, and some common sense.
I would hope that all potential investors do enough research to determine what kind of company LinuxOne really is.
No wonder the CNN poll is so different from other polls, Slashdot fanatics are stuffing the ballot box.
Yes, it is unfortunate that posting a link is "stuffing" the ballot box. But at least it is done by legitimate votes, and not unscrupulously, the way that Microsoft often stuffs the ballot boxes.
No, now bill will have to play by a much more restrictive set of rules than everyone else does. Everyone else has the freedom to add new features, and the freedom to tell people "don't like it, don't buy it." Gates doesn't.
No, now Bill won't be able to prevent everyone else from playing by the same rules they play. They innovate, and will always have the right too. However, they have prevented other companies from innovating in areas that Microsoft controls. Now, the other companies will once again have the freedom to innovate, just like Microsoft does.
I'd argue that locking out the MS client, while not preventing other clients to access the AIM userbase, is anticompetitive.
The other companies that bundle AIM compatible clients, worked out deals with AOL. (ie. licensed, paid, partnered, worked with) Microsoft, on the other hand didn't talk to AOL at all. They just barged their way in and did what they wanted.
Also, just because AOL chooses to let some clients freely connect, does not demand that every client must be allowed to freely connect. Think of it this way. Microsoft gives software to educational facilities, and other "charitable" causes. Yet if Dell were to insist that that means that Microsoft *must* license Windows to them for free also, we'd all be having a good laugh. We should have the same response when Microsoft implies that AOL must "license" access to the AIM service for free.
Now, if when Microsoft would talk with AOL about licensing the AIM service, AOL would demand that Microsoft shut down MSN to license it, then I think we'd all agree that that is going beyong natural competitive practices. Yet it is actions like that that Microsoft has taken that they are now being sued for.
If it's split along OS, application, etc. lines, then each individual company has to make agreements with the others regarding things like APIs, etc.
Best way to split up Microsoft would be to have 2 OS companies, 2 application companies, and so on. That way Windows, Inc, can't go to Dell and say, no more Windows for you unless you sign this exclusive license. With multiple companies competing with the same base product, they'll do what they can to get business. This means allowing OEM's to preload other OS's, to get their contract.
Having one company still selling Windows, doesn't correct the problem that they have an undesirable amount of control over their clients. It would probably prevent them from preventing OEM's from bundling Netscape, but wouldn't have done much when IBM preloaded OS/2 along with 95.
You made a lot of true points. But does that mean that Microsoft should be let off because they did some good things. That's like not punishing a murderer because they always paid their utility bill on time.
Microsoft has had failures all over the place in market segments they have tried to diversify into.
Absolutely. Maybe it's not something that people recognise, but it's true.
The problem I have with all the anti-Microsoft paranoia is that it's all based on hype.
It's not all based on hype. Do you think that charging IBM 4 times what they would have if IBM didn't sell OS/2 was hype? How about preventing OEM's from bundling Netscape. That was hype, right?
MSN isn't going to wipe out all the independent ISPs. (another near-Monopoly, AOL, does that nicely, thankyouverymuch)
AOL is definately *not* wiping out independent ISP's. And they definately aren't trying to by using anti-competitive practices.
Microsoft isn't likely to take over the Enterprise Database market (a few huge firms, including Oracle have that field tied up)
You are right. But they sure do make noises claiming that they will. But they won't.
Of course, some people need a big monster to point to, to excuse their failures.
This is a knee-jerk reaction. You show me just one example where Microsoft is used to excuse someone else's failure. It wasn't a failure on Netscape's part that OEM's were forced to unbundle their browser, or lose licensing agreements. This is what the case is all about. Microsoft unethical practices.
Your opinion may vary from mine, but I'll put money on my prediction that this offer from Compaq won't have too many takers.
I absolutely concur with you. In fact, if you talk to Compaq, I would almost guarentee that they would agree with you. Just because someone markets something, that doesn't mean that they are marketing it to *you*.
This is Tru64. It isn't a competitor to Linux. Those using Linux will use Linux. Those interested in Tru64, will find this offer interesting. And those interested people are those that Compaq is marketing this too.
Why on earth would my C programming experience have any bearing on my ability to note that, for my purposes, this is not a good deal?
The original post had nothing to do with whether this was a good deal or not. The poster was refering to the fact that it appeared that the other posters were clueless about Unix and what it really was marketed for.
Tru64 and Linux have different marketable areas. I don't think that anyone using Linux would be considering Tru64. Statements like, "Can I play games on this?", as well as the ones mentioned in the first post prove this.
No, Tru64 isn't for people who use Linux because they are rE411y r4d d00dz. For them, it isn't a "good deal". But then Compaq isn't focusing this offer on them anyways.
Then again, this is Microsoft, so we have to rejoice at the fact that it's harder to buy off an entire jury than it is to influence a single judge!
No, you are gravely wrong. It is much harder to buy of a judge than a whole jury, because...
...a jury finding of fact might be fairly irrational; influenced more heavily by emotion than fact.
Juries are extremely fickle. Microsoft will try to sway the decision by arguing, not facts, but that MS is unfairly beaten upon. The jury will then decide that it's true, why *should* these companies be allowed to keep suing MS for being successful, and Microsoft will get a vafourable decision.
In the DOJ case, the judge was also the trier of fact (2). In this case, my guess (someone can go to the courthouse and check the pleadings to make sure) is that Caldera demanded the jury, expecting sympathy for the little guy (if I represented ms, I would want a bench trial [judge instead of jury]).
Watch out though, the outcome may not be what you think. A jury tends to, especially in high-visibilty cases, base their decision more on public opinion. A judge will decide on facts and rule of law.
Because Microsoft has a high public opinion, it is more likely that the jury would decide for them. After all, it's just the little guy picking on a big guy who did nothing but be successful, right?
That's why I'm glad the DOJ trial did not have a jury. If it did, I would predict the outcome would have been strongly in MS' favour. The judge though will look and facts and laws, and not how MS is doing in the polls.
Microsoft has convinced themselves and other that anti-competitive practices is really competition. You notice that both Compuserve and Prodigy no longer exist.
This had very little to do with MS.
I didn't do to well piecing sentences together there. I didn't meant that Compuserve and Prodigy crumbled because Microsoft had anything to do with it. I meant that they didn't crumble because AOL was dominant and used that anti-competitively. AOL was better, but they did nothing to prevent CIS and Prodigy from being better. That they were failures, is purely their fault.
Unlike several of Microsoft's customers, who did fail, not solely of their own mistakes, but due to Microsoft preventing them from competing.
Note that Bill Gates wanted to buy or bury AOL too, but AOL trounced MSN easily. Notice the surprising failure of Windows CE. I predict that Microsoft's console box will be a failure too. So Microsoft doesn't have the power to destroy every market, but they do all they can in the market they do have power in to prevent competition. Even then, Linux, Mozilla, Samba, KDE/Gnome, have the ability to compete, against all odds and beat Microsoft. But simply because Microsoft can be beaten doesn't mean that they didn't do anything wrong. And it doesn't negate wrongs they've done in the past.
Then how come I can't use my MSN Messenger to talk to my AOL IM buddies?
This has been bashed out in the past. That's like asking how come Dominoes won't delivery Pizza Hut pizza's for free. After all, who's to deny Pizza Hut to right to have delivery service. AIM is AOL's Service. Like a delivery service, they provide value, and like a delievery service they can work with however they want, but on their terms.
There are many IM services that I could use that I'm able to communicate with AIM users with. I'm not talking about the open source clients. I'm talking about, for instance, Real's IM service? You heard of it before? If you have the G2 player, you can see the icon for the service in the player window. See it there? Yep, that's right, it's the standard AIM service, licensed from AOL. AOL has licensed their IM service to many commercial companies.
It's not AOL who's preventing Microsoft from interopolating with AIM users. It's your bright shining company, Microsoft themselves that prevents this from happening. Microsoft needs to do what the others have done, go to AOL with the dollars, and set up a licensing deal. Of course, that doesn't mean that AOL *has* to accept it. Seeing Microsoft's so-called "licensing" agreements in the past (Spyglass anyone?), I'd make sure that there was a lot of good stuff for me, before accepting anything from Microsoft.
And no, you can't use the excuse that because AOL freely allowed Open Source clients to use their service that they *must* allow anyone to freely use their service. The local pizza shop may give free pizzas to the local childrens foundation, but I've still got to pony up the cash.
I'm not saying that MS is a paragon of virtue -- but holding AOL up as a respectable model is just ludicrous. I was going to add additional/. articles dealing with AOL here, but there were so many that you might as well just pick some out yourself.
I looked through the list and didn't see anything that had anything to do with the subject at hand. You show me one thing that AOL did that was solely anti-competitive, and served nothing but preventing better online services from competing in the market.
The GPL is like the first amendment, it protects free speech, but doesn't give you the right to say anything. It doesn't give you the right to say libel and slandor, for instance. So it protects *some* speech, but not all speech.
The BSD license gives further. It basically allows anything. Sort of like libel and slandor, it allows greedy, unethically companies to take our free "speech" from us. The BSD license does not protect, it allows anything. Yes, it is truly free, but truly free means free to harm, as well as free to help.
The GPL restricts your ability to harm, making it truly a free "speech" license. What good is licensing your code under a free license, if it doesn't prohibit someone from stealing it from you and making it closed source? You may as well keep it under a closed source license to begin with. That's why the GPL is superior.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are using that as a reason why they judge won't punish Microsoft, you are wrong. What happens in the future can never change what happened in the past.
This is really a non-event. The only people who didn't see this coming were the ones that don't know anything about Microsoft beside their product came preloaded on their machine.Apparently, from reading the /. posts this morning *still*, there are quite a few techie people who not only didn't see this coming, but still refuse to believe that it happened.
-Brent--
If you are using that as a reason why they judge won't punish Microsoft, you are wrong. What happens in the future can never change what happened in the past.
This doesn't mean much at the moment (Score:1) by MISplice on 10:27 AM November 8th, 1999 EST (#12) (User Info) http://members.xoom.com/MISplice/ This is just a finding of fact and does really mean anything right now. By the time we actually get to the damage stage and what should be done it is very possible Microsoft won't be dependant on Windows at all. As far as their investors go, they knew what Microsoft was/is and their stock price won't be affected that much in the long term as long as they continue to make a profit and keep the shareholders happy. This is really a non-event. The only people who didn't see this coming were the ones that don't know anything about Microsoft beside their product came preloaded on their machine.Apparently, from reading the /. posts this morning *still*, there are quite a few techie people who not only didn't see this coming, but still refuse to believe that it happened.
-Brent--
Yes. It may have meant a 5th of their revenue *then*, but Microsoft was worrying about the future. If they would have allowed it then, it would have made it easier for Compaq to replace Windows with a different OS later.
Do you really think that Compaq and others would have been able to pick up millions copies of Windows at retail $$, and still be able to compete. That would have raised the price of computers by at least $150. And then, do you really think that Microsoft wouldn't have known it, and prevented distributors from reselling to Compaq? Yeah right, that's the most absurd thing I've heard all morning.
-Brent--
Really, it was their choice? Okay, prove it too me. Which paragraph in the FOF does Judge Jackson state that IBM could have chosen to continue to preload OS/2 if they wanted too?
We are beyond the stage where groundless rumors and opinions carry any weight. Take a piece of advice from me. From here on out, we'd all tend to believe you guys more if you'd include references to the FOF that back you up. If you can't, then what you say is just plain, fat lies.
-Brent--
Might I recommend you read the FOF's
Judge Jackson does quite well in describing how "effectively" Microsoft marketed their products. In fact, he agrees that Microsoft's marketing of their products was adversaly opposite to how the products would have been marketed in a market that put the best interests of consumers first.
-Brent--
Meaningless to our quest for total world domination, perhaps, but future losses don't negate past infractions.
Microsoft may go completely bankrupt in the future, but that doesn't change the fact that they illegally stifled innovation in the past.
-Brent--
I'm certainly believe that with all my heart. And I think that when Mozilla is released we'll have it. And I think it won't be as big a problem to get people to use Mozilla as you think.
Microsoft will be prevented from forcing IE on OEM's and IAP's. We'll see more of them using Mozilla as their browser, that'll result in more people writing real web pages. And life will be good.
Well, I can dream...
-Brent--
Sorry to burst your bubble but not everyone who has some hot air and speacks of Linux is a Linux developer. There are lot's of idiots continually blowing a lot of hot air around too. But I don't take that as Microsoft's official position.
If you want to claim that one of the Linux developers actually made that claim, you'll have to show me a quote from a developer listed in the CREDITS file or other valid source. Anyone else is just being a nuisence.
Right...I bet you believe in Santa Claus, too...We now have the FOF to go by. It's no longer rumor and hearsay. I recommend downloading the FOF and reading it yourself. Nothing else really matters.
And yes, the Judge found that Microsoft had wrongfully inhibited Intels freedoms to develop better processers. We have all been damaged in the processor market by lower quality/preforming chips, because Microsoft deemed the innovations a threat to their dominance.
Funny, I don't see anyone with broken kneecaps due to a MS OS...I hope that's a figure of speech, or something. It is really far out to define harm as just broken kneecaps. Then we'd have this in a murder trial, "No, your honour, I did not harm the murdered victim. Both his kneecaps are still intact."
But the Judge has determined that Microsoft's actions have harmed consumers. In not just one way, but many numerous ways. Consumers were hurt when they had to have a browser integrated with Windows when they didn't want one. They were hurt when OEM's weren't able to make PC's easier to use then Microsoft allowed. And many others. They are all documented in the FOF. And Judge Jackson determined that they were able to successfully due this only because they had no competitors.
Note that it is not wrong to not have competition. It is wrong however, to use your position to harm comsumers and deny others the freedom to innovate.
As any other company would do! All you Linux people seem to forget that if we did a s/Sun/Microsoft/g on the past few years, we'd all be griping about how evil Sun was...quit picking on MS just because they got lucky.I think this is the first point in this post that you actually said something good. You are right, if it were Sun, or AOL, or Red Hat, or any other company that violated the law in the way Microsoft has, then they would be in Microsoft's place in court. No one is above the law, not even Microsoft.
The only thing that matters here is cold, hard facts. Judge Jackson gave them to use. If you disagree with them, then I ask you, along with Microsoft, "Show me the facts." Opinion doesn't matter here. Hypothetical situations are of no concern. Theories and ideas play no part of this. It is solely about facts, and facts alone.
I'd be more then willing to concede with you any single point that you can back up with a fact. So far, I've seen no one on Microsoft's side, not even Microsoft themselves, be able to use one single fact to prove their case. Every single fact is against Microsoft. Every single one. I dare you, prove me wrong.
-Brent--
The web should, no *must* be browser independent. It should be standards dependent. If it makes a difference what web browser you use, then someone has abused the web.
I use IE now, because it is the newest Windows browser. I use it in the same way I'd buy a 99 Ford model car because Chevy hadn't released a new model for 2 years to make their 2000 models irresistable. Driving a Ford this year shouldn't prevent me from replacing it with a Chevy next year. And likewise, I should be able to pop out IE 5 and pop in Mozilla without noticing a difference in functionality.
If I do, then the one that's not standards compliant is *wrong* and will be disposed of as quickly as possible. I think that a lot of other people/companies think the same way.
And as you mentioned, if they don't, then they are the ones that are losing. If I am not able to buy a ticket for Northwest online because they aren't out to serve *me*, well, then there are plenty of other airlines to go to.
-Brent--
Instead of babbering non-sense, let's see some facts to back up what you claim above. Just show me one quote by just one of the kernel developers and I'll believe you.
Also, the case has nothing to do with Linux getting more marketshare then Windows. It has to do with Microsoft's anti-competitive practices which harmed customers. For instance, preventing Intel for innovating by making a much better chip that results a non-Windows API. If it wren't for Microsoft, we'd have much better processors by now. Also, their actions, purposely harming consumers when it benefited them, in the areas of streaming media, web browsers, and OEM licensing.
No, the case isn't about marketshare. Linux can take over the market on it's own strength. We don't need a court case for that.
-Brent--
Well, I think that a privacy statement is legally binding. So if they say they won't use data collected to track you, and they do, then they are liable for damages.
The important thing is that the have a privacy statement. It is up to *you* to read it and determine if it is appropriate for you. If it isn't, then you don't have anything to do with them.
-Brent--
It's your GUID whether you send them your zip code or not.
I don't have a big deal about RealPlayer collecting geographic infomation, as long as they have a privacy statement.
A GUID is just that, a mostly random number. Although I agree, it could be used wrongly.
-Brent--
I agree. Having strict rules may keep out scammers, but it'll also keep out legitimate companies. I think the best defense is the one employed currently. Lot's of research, and some common sense.
I would hope that all potential investors do enough research to determine what kind of company LinuxOne really is.
-Brent--
Yes, it is unfortunate that posting a link is "stuffing" the ballot box. But at least it is done by legitimate votes, and not unscrupulously, the way that Microsoft often stuffs the ballot boxes.
-Brent--
No, now Bill won't be able to prevent everyone else from playing by the same rules they play. They innovate, and will always have the right too. However, they have prevented other companies from innovating in areas that Microsoft controls. Now, the other companies will once again have the freedom to innovate, just like Microsoft does.
This is what we all want, isn't it?
-Brent--
The other companies that bundle AIM compatible clients, worked out deals with AOL. (ie. licensed, paid, partnered, worked with) Microsoft, on the other hand didn't talk to AOL at all. They just barged their way in and did what they wanted.
Also, just because AOL chooses to let some clients freely connect, does not demand that every client must be allowed to freely connect. Think of it this way. Microsoft gives software to educational facilities, and other "charitable" causes. Yet if Dell were to insist that that means that Microsoft *must* license Windows to them for free also, we'd all be having a good laugh. We should have the same response when Microsoft implies that AOL must "license" access to the AIM service for free.
Now, if when Microsoft would talk with AOL about licensing the AIM service, AOL would demand that Microsoft shut down MSN to license it, then I think we'd all agree that that is going beyong natural competitive practices. Yet it is actions like that that Microsoft has taken that they are now being sued for.
-Brent--
They are. Chat, terminal client, another chat client. What else? there must be more...
-Brent--
Best way to split up Microsoft would be to have 2 OS companies, 2 application companies, and so on. That way Windows, Inc, can't go to Dell and say, no more Windows for you unless you sign this exclusive license. With multiple companies competing with the same base product, they'll do what they can to get business. This means allowing OEM's to preload other OS's, to get their contract.
Having one company still selling Windows, doesn't correct the problem that they have an undesirable amount of control over their clients. It would probably prevent them from preventing OEM's from bundling Netscape, but wouldn't have done much when IBM preloaded OS/2 along with 95.
-Brent--
You made a lot of true points. But does that mean that Microsoft should be let off because they did some good things. That's like not punishing a murderer because they always paid their utility bill on time.
Microsoft has had failures all over the place in market segments they have tried to diversify into.Absolutely. Maybe it's not something that people recognise, but it's true.
The problem I have with all the anti-Microsoft paranoia is that it's all based on hype.It's not all based on hype. Do you think that charging IBM 4 times what they would have if IBM didn't sell OS/2 was hype? How about preventing OEM's from bundling Netscape. That was hype, right?
MSN isn't going to wipe out all the independent ISPs. (another near-Monopoly, AOL, does that nicely, thankyouverymuch)AOL is definately *not* wiping out independent ISP's. And they definately aren't trying to by using anti-competitive practices.
Microsoft isn't likely to take over the Enterprise Database market (a few huge firms, including Oracle have that field tied up)You are right. But they sure do make noises claiming that they will. But they won't.
Of course, some people need a big monster to point to, to excuse their failures.This is a knee-jerk reaction. You show me just one example where Microsoft is used to excuse someone else's failure. It wasn't a failure on Netscape's part that OEM's were forced to unbundle their browser, or lose licensing agreements. This is what the case is all about. Microsoft unethical practices.
-Brent--
I absolutely concur with you. In fact, if you talk to Compaq, I would almost guarentee that they would agree with you. Just because someone markets something, that doesn't mean that they are marketing it to *you*.
This is Tru64. It isn't a competitor to Linux. Those using Linux will use Linux. Those interested in Tru64, will find this offer interesting. And those interested people are those that Compaq is marketing this too.
-Brent--
The original post had nothing to do with whether this was a good deal or not. The poster was refering to the fact that it appeared that the other posters were clueless about Unix and what it really was marketed for.
Tru64 and Linux have different marketable areas. I don't think that anyone using Linux would be considering Tru64. Statements like, "Can I play games on this?", as well as the ones mentioned in the first post prove this.
No, Tru64 isn't for people who use Linux because they are rE411y r4d d00dz. For them, it isn't a "good deal". But then Compaq isn't focusing this offer on them anyways.
-Brent--
No, you are gravely wrong. It is much harder to buy of a judge than a whole jury, because...
Juries are extremely fickle. Microsoft will try to sway the decision by arguing, not facts, but that MS is unfairly beaten upon. The jury will then decide that it's true, why *should* these companies be allowed to keep suing MS for being successful, and Microsoft will get a vafourable decision.
-Brent--
Watch out though, the outcome may not be what you think. A jury tends to, especially in high-visibilty cases, base their decision more on public opinion. A judge will decide on facts and rule of law.
Because Microsoft has a high public opinion, it is more likely that the jury would decide for them. After all, it's just the little guy picking on a big guy who did nothing but be successful, right?
That's why I'm glad the DOJ trial did not have a jury. If it did, I would predict the outcome would have been strongly in MS' favour. The judge though will look and facts and laws, and not how MS is doing in the polls.
-Brent--
I didn't do to well piecing sentences together there. I didn't meant that Compuserve and Prodigy crumbled because Microsoft had anything to do with it. I meant that they didn't crumble because AOL was dominant and used that anti-competitively. AOL was better, but they did nothing to prevent CIS and Prodigy from being better. That they were failures, is purely their fault.
Unlike several of Microsoft's customers, who did fail, not solely of their own mistakes, but due to Microsoft preventing them from competing.
Note that Bill Gates wanted to buy or bury AOL too, but AOL trounced MSN easily. Notice the surprising failure of Windows CE. I predict that Microsoft's console box will be a failure too. So Microsoft doesn't have the power to destroy every market, but they do all they can in the market they do have power in to prevent competition. Even then, Linux, Mozilla, Samba, KDE/Gnome, have the ability to compete, against all odds and beat Microsoft. But simply because Microsoft can be beaten doesn't mean that they didn't do anything wrong. And it doesn't negate wrongs they've done in the past.
Then how come I can't use my MSN Messenger to talk to my AOL IM buddies?This has been bashed out in the past. That's like asking how come Dominoes won't delivery Pizza Hut pizza's for free. After all, who's to deny Pizza Hut to right to have delivery service. AIM is AOL's Service. Like a delivery service, they provide value, and like a delievery service they can work with however they want, but on their terms.
There are many IM services that I could use that I'm able to communicate with AIM users with. I'm not talking about the open source clients. I'm talking about, for instance, Real's IM service? You heard of it before? If you have the G2 player, you can see the icon for the service in the player window. See it there? Yep, that's right, it's the standard AIM service, licensed from AOL. AOL has licensed their IM service to many commercial companies.
It's not AOL who's preventing Microsoft from interopolating with AIM users. It's your bright shining company, Microsoft themselves that prevents this from happening. Microsoft needs to do what the others have done, go to AOL with the dollars, and set up a licensing deal. Of course, that doesn't mean that AOL *has* to accept it. Seeing Microsoft's so-called "licensing" agreements in the past (Spyglass anyone?), I'd make sure that there was a lot of good stuff for me, before accepting anything from Microsoft.
And no, you can't use the excuse that because AOL freely allowed Open Source clients to use their service that they *must* allow anyone to freely use their service. The local pizza shop may give free pizzas to the local childrens foundation, but I've still got to pony up the cash.
I'm not saying that MS is a paragon of virtue -- but holding AOL up as a respectable model is just ludicrous. I was going to add additionalI looked through the list and didn't see anything that had anything to do with the subject at hand. You show me one thing that AOL did that was solely anti-competitive, and served nothing but preventing better online services from competing in the market.
-Brent--
The GPL is like the first amendment, it protects free speech, but doesn't give you the right to say anything. It doesn't give you the right to say libel and slandor, for instance. So it protects *some* speech, but not all speech.
The BSD license gives further. It basically allows anything. Sort of like libel and slandor, it allows greedy, unethically companies to take our free "speech" from us. The BSD license does not protect, it allows anything. Yes, it is truly free, but truly free means free to harm, as well as free to help.
The GPL restricts your ability to harm, making it truly a free "speech" license. What good is licensing your code under a free license, if it doesn't prohibit someone from stealing it from you and making it closed source? You may as well keep it under a closed source license to begin with. That's why the GPL is superior.
-Brent--