Given the number of pro-Microsoft trolls frequenting Slashdot recently, I wouldn't be sure that the number of votes resulting from the Slashdot effect is as skewed as you might think.
IANAL, but what boggles my mind is what a horrible job Microsoft's legal counsel did in the case considering the amount of money that Microsoft has to spend on lawyers. Even though I believe that Microsoft was obviously guilty, I don't think their legal team did a very good job of representing them.
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I might wonder if Microsoft is using an appeal based on inadequate legal representation as a stalling tactic. Of course that would get laughed out given their pocketbook (that defense generally only works for people who can't afford a good lawyer).
Not being a conspiracy theorist, I don't think that Microsoft going into the trial grossly underestimated the quality of the DOJ's staff (and given the performance we normally see from the government, I can't totally say they didn't have reason to be a little complacent).
Another probability is that Microsoft just doesn't think that even losing this case can stop them, and if people continue to follow them like sheep they might be right, at least in the short run.
What I am saying is that those of us who oppose Microsoft have to step up even more vigilantly now, because Microsoft isn't down yet, and they could be back and madder than ever, so we can't let our guard down.
but they brought to the world cryptic filenames, single tasking OS's,
Actually not only were those things in QD-DOS which Microsoft bought, QD-DOS was a clone of CP/M, from which it borrowed the 8+3 filename convention and general structure (including its single tasking nature). CP/M (written by Gary Kildall who was a former DEC employee) in turn was largely a subset clone of DEC PDP-11 minicomputer operating systems for the S-100 based 8008/8080/Z80 microcomputers of the mid 70's.
Microsoft is free to start innovating any time they want. History shows they haven't done much of it.
If you take actual take home pay per hour worked and take into account regional cost of living differences, I would guess that I make as much if not more per hour as most Microsoft employees who do the same sort of work as I do. I personally don't harbor any real ill will towards the average working joe at Microsoft, its the way their management does business that is the problem.
People who have put money into shorting stocks, or people who have money in investments that tend to go down when the stock market goes up. People who work in businesses that tend to slow down if the Fed raises interest rates (as they tend to do when the stock market goes up too much), etc. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone rejoices when the stock markets go up.
On the other hand, the competitive long distance networks coming into existance is one of the things that made the growth and commercialization of the internet possible. If you look at the big backbone bandwidth providers like MCI WorldCom, Sprint, AT&T, etc, they are almost all outgrowths of long distance providers. Without the breakup of AT&T, it is likely that there never would have been a competitive market for data networks and the internet as we know it would not have been commercially feasable.
Well, what is good for most people isn't always good for everyone. I think that in general most consumers have benefitted from the breakup of AT&T, but as you note, that may not have been true for everyone. Unfortunately, the $3 long distance network access fee you are talking about isn't even something that is imposed by the phone company, but rather a sort of tax imposed by the feds.
Has no one really considered the implications that no more microsoft would mean?
Yes, but that isn't what is going to happen. Even if Microsoft loses the case (which seems plausable), it won't come to that.
Think of all the businesses depending upon them for tech support etc.
Like losing technical support from Microsoft would be a big problem? Their technical support is not only grossly overpriced, it stinks. There will always be someone there to provide technical support to those that need it. Most likely if companies were forced to shop around they would benefit from finding a better and cheaper support provider.
Let's face it, Microsoft is so entrenched in, well, everything, that destroying it would likely manage to cause major economic consequences to the whole country.
Oh please. Microsoft is no more entrenched than AT&T was before they were broken up. The breakup of AT&T didn't cause dire economic disaster for the country. Customers have benefitted, and competitors to AT&T have flourished. AT&T is still around, and seems like it is going to be around for a long time to come.
Destroying MS by a court ruling would be a *horrible* action.
Even if that is true, who says Microsoft would be destroyed by being broken up (probably the most harsh action that could be taken as a result of this case)?
You are going to leave many, many consumers in a sticky situation.
Why? The copies of Windows and MS-Office they have now won't suddenly disappear. Its not like you couldn't still buy Windows or MS-Office, you would just have to buy them from seperate companies.
People didn't suddenly not have phone service when AT&T was broken up. People weren't suddenly cut off from their supply of gasoline when the Standard Oil trust was broken up. AT&T didn't go belly up. Their business has changed, but they have still managed to be fairly profitable. Standard Oil is still in existance and profitable.
There is no reason to think that Microsoft would be completely destroyed if they were broken up and forced to play ethically. Predictions of the end of the world are gross exaggerations at best.
If anything, the risks to the economy from problems of Microsoft would probably be reduced because it would be several smaller companies (although probably still pretty large) instead of one huge one. Failure of any individual divisions wouldn't have consequences to the others anymore.
in the 50's, when you more or less HAD TO buy Ford if you were in US.
Ford lost their dominance of the US auto industry in the 1920's and 1930's. The companies that would be put together to build General Motors were able to push Ford into second place because Ford was too slow to improve their designs. Who would buy a 4 cylinder Ford Model T, which was available only in black when you could get a 6 cylinder Chevrolet in any one of several available colors for only a little more money?
Frankly, there was a lot more competition in the US auto market in the 1950's than there is now, in that there were 7 or 8 credible players (GM, Ford, Chrysler, Nash, Hudson, Studebaker, Packard, etc) and now there are only 3. Of course even that is a much better situation than what we have in the desktop OS and desktop office software markets, because even at their strongest, none of the big 3 auto makers controls more than 50% of the domestic market, and that is without considering competition from imports.
It would be nice if the computer industry was able to self-regulate that way, but it doesn't seem like it can when the only OS that seems to be able to make any headway against Microsoft is one that is essentially available for free.
But why should every computer user be punished for the "wrongs" Microsoft committed?
Not every computer user would be punished if Microsoft was punished. Every Microsoft user might be, but not all of us are, contrary to popular belief. What would the downside for Linux, *BSD, Solaris, Mac, BeOS or other non-Microsoft OS users be?
As for Microsoft users, one could argue that they were an enabler of Microsoft, and therefore any punishment to Microsoft that flows down to them would be fair.
I'm not sure I would completely buy that argument, because I think that most Microsoft customers were more or less unwitting or essentially forced into it (due to bundling deals and peer pressure).
At any rate, it might not seem like it in the short term, but in the long run consumers would benefit if Microsoft was forced to play in a competitive market.
What did the breakup do for you and I? Doubled the phone rates.
I think you are quite mistaken here. Phone rates have gone down dramatically, especially for long distance. Local rates were largely unaffected for many years because of the lack of competition at that level until recently. Now that there are CLECs giving the RBOCs competition, we are starting to see local rates go down as well. It has taken longer than it should at the local level, but I don't see any evidence in my phone bill that consumers have seen anything but benefits from the AT&T breakup.
How many executives at major corporations have facial hair? Quite a few that I can think of, and I don't watch all that closely. I don't think that having facial hair makes you some kind of wierdo. I also think that there are plenty of clean shaven people who are total wierdos (I've seen plenty of pictures of Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and other certifiable nuts with clean shaven faces).
Seriously, there is little merit in judging Richard Stallman (or anyone else) strictly on appearances. You could bathe him, shave him and put him in a 3-piece blue suit, but I seriously doubt it is going to change him or his message. Would you suddenly take him seriously if he started conforming to your anal-retentive standards? Do you really believe or trust someone just because they look like they just stepped off the pages of GQ?
Would you believe that Microsoft had the foresight to declare time_t as unsigned, which gives them until 2105 to develop a 64-bit OS?:)
They will probably need that long.:-) The problem with making time_t unsigned, is that it makes it impossible to use time_t values to represent a date/time before January 1, 1970. This is a big problem for some applications which need to represent a wider variation of times. It also makes their time_t incompatible with normal usage, but that wouldn't be surprising coming from Microsoft.
UNIX was originally developed in the 70's under the auspices of AT&T Bell Labs. Because of that, AT&T owns the rights to Unix and it's direct derivatives,
Make that own. They sold USL (UNIX Systems Labs) to Novell quite a long time ago. A few years ago Novell gave the UNIX trademark to X/Open (now The Open Group) and sold the System V code base to SCO.
and receives a royalty for each true Unix sold
Actually, SCO now receives a royalty on each derivative of the System V code base, but The Open Group controls the licensing of the UNIX trademark. It is possible to be UNIX branded and not use a single line of the original AT&T source code and not pay SCO a penny. There are fees charged by TOG, however for getting validated, and parts of their spec for what 'true UNIX' is require commercial software (Motif and CDE for example), which makes it very difficult for a free OS like Linux or the *BSDs to consider getting UNIX branded.
(and no, it probably won't ever be GPL'd)
That is probably correct as far as the System V code base goes (unless SCO was to go belly up or something), however it really doesn't matter that much anymore because there are good free equivalents.
BTW, as for AIX, it differs fairly significantly from other commercial UNIXes as far as the system administration aspects go. Linux and for example, Solaris are much closer to each other than Linux and AIX are. From the point of view of a software developer or an end user, they are all more similar than from the perspective of a system administrator though.
it's still a tax. Isn't that what we're always complaining about with M$?
The difference I see here is that the motherboard manufacturer is going to have to ship some sort of CD anyway (for drivers and stuff). Most likely it would otherwise be mostly empty. If they can cut a deal with Corel to fill that otherwise wasted space with Corel Linux+WordPerfect, then it isn't so bad. It may not really be a 'tax' per-se if this is a mutual advertising swap, and no money changes hands. I can see Corel doing it just to get market share and potential future upgrade earnings. For the motherboard manufacturer it offers them the opportunity to get some product differentiation in a market where that is a difficult thing to find, and also a nice way to make their CD bootable at a much cheaper price than what they'd pay to do that with Microsoft -- potentially that could save them some $$$ in the tech support area.
in most manufacturing environments it costs more to leave something out than to just make everything the same.
Although when it comes to fabbing CD's, it costs the same to press a full CD as opposed to a mostly empty one. You are correcrt if you are talking about whether it would cost more to stock a seperate 'driver only' CD or to sell motherboards with or without a CD.
"Even if not, you are certainly acting like a Microsoft apologist." Certainly not. I just don't agree with the mentality that if you're not with me, you must be against me. I don't MS bash just because it's the fashionable thing to do.
Neither do I. I was critical of Microsoft way before it ever became fashionable. For that matter, in most of the world it isn't.
It seems that a large percentage, no I didn't do a study to get the exact percent, of S.D. readers bash just for bashing sake. I've read alot of incredibly stupid comments, especially on the favoured split-up of MS, posted on S.D. lately.
Go to other forums with a more pro-Microsoft slant, and you can read an equally large and stupid number of comments going the other direction. As I've said before, if Microsoft was to suddenly turn around and start operating in an ethical manner, most of my complaints against them would be gone. I used to be a very vocal anti-IBMer due to them practicing many of the same tactics during the 70s and 80s as Microsoft does now. IBM has made a lot of progress in turning their ship around over the past few years, and my criticisms of them have diminished significantly. I still am somewhat wary about them though, but that will diminish as time goes on if they keep going the same way they have.
Having grown-up with MS, a hint of my age,
Oh please, you make me sound like I was as old as the dinosaurs. I'm probably not that much older than you are, but perhaps I started paying attention to the computer market at an earlier age or have studied up more on the industries history or something.
I've watched the MS opinion go from one similar to Linus to one of utter disdain.
Don't you wonder why that is? Microsoft has nobody but themselves to blame for that. Back in the old days (pre-1981), they were fairly small, and didn't have that much influence. Digital Research's CP/M filled the market niche that MS-DOS and Windows fill now. IBM wasn't even in the PC market. Most of Microsoft's revenue came from royalties on the BASIC interpreter in the ROM of the Apple II and Commodore 8-bit machines and for BASIC interpreter software sold as an add-on to CP/M. People's opinions about Microsoft would be far different if they really were the benevolent organization that their PR spin machine would have everyone else believe. If they really did just want to innovate and if they were content to win market share just by building good products and doing a good job of marketing them. If they didn't stab their partners in the back and run roughshod over any upstarts that work hard to carve out a new niche in the business. At any rate, even in the late 70's Gates was not always making a lot of friends. Many in the computer community back then considered him somewhat of a crybaby due to the way he complained about people pirating paper-tape copies of BASIC.
I wonder what public opinion will be of Linus if/when Linux takes off and becomes the OS of Choice.
That is totally up to what Linus does. So far Linus has managed to stay very down-to-earth. As I've said before, I wouldn't rush to appoint Linus to sainthood, but I see no evidence that he is suddenly going to turn into a ruthless megalomaniac bent on forcing every competitor in any remotely related enterprise out of business.
a whole lot of out of context quotes deleted Quote number (1) and (2) seem to indicate a company practicing good business sense. Up to a point. Isn't this the goal of the free market place, to expand and grow? But it needs to be done within the bounds of ethics and legality. Microsoft doesn't know when to quit. They play hardball even when it isn't necessary. In the long run this may come back to haunt them. It is not a coincidence that they have made a lot of enemies and engendered resentment within a lot of people. Microsoft has only themselves to blame for most of the anti-Microsoft backlash we are seeing these days. Isn't this what Linux wants, "A bigger piece of the pie"? Microsoft is hated for doing this. Linux is praised for doing the same.I don't understand? The difference being that Linux can't and doesn't use unethical and/or tactics in order to grow its marketshare. Linux is growing because it works, it works well, and people like it. Quoted # (3) and (4) really require much explanation."Bill needs to repent for his sins" Get real. I assume you are "sin free"? Don't be silly, of course not, however, my sins don't have a negative impact on millions of people. If they did I might behave even more more ethically than I do. That being said, I think if judged on the same set of rules as Bill, that I have little to be ashamed of. Unlike Bill and his 'aw shucks, I am just a nerd' act, I have never made any claims that I am a nice guy. Pure and simple MS bashing by a Linux Zealot. Your arguments could just as easily be summed up as pure and simple bashing my a Microsoft apologist. Microsoft are big boys, why do you think they need you to defend them? Linux has nobody but us little guys -- the users. Without people like us, companies like IBM, Netscape, Corel, etc., would never have heard of Linux.
Not really. I've been involved in plenty of active debates over the years and I'm not even mildly perturbed yet.
You went from debating the pros/cons of operating systems to a direct attack on me.
Direct attack? You haven't seen an attack. I believe I've been nothing less than civil. You must be mistaking criticism of your unimaginative debating style and lack of details as a personal attack.
You believe Linux is a valid replacement,
I said it is a valid replacement for me. I didn't ever say it was a valid replacement for everyone. However, I don't think that my needs are that much different than a lot of other people. I challenged you to elaborate on why you think Linux isn't valid. I still haven't heard any reasons.
I happen to believe it hasn't reach that level yet.
And my point is that you make that statement in a very vague way that isn't adding much to the discussion. You haven't given any details as to why you think that.
Having said that, I am not a MS lover.
Even if not, you are certainly acting like a Microsoft apologist. Microsoft are big boys, why do they need you to defend them? They've got all kinds of lawyers and money to buy advertising and pay spokesmen.
Please tell me why my opinion is less valid than yours?
Please show me where I said your opinion isn't valid. Asking you to explain why you have that opinion is a totally different thing, and perfectly acceptable in a constructive, civil discussion. If your opinion is valid, then elaborate on it, and it should stand on its own.
If all you can do is attack me because I disagree with you, that only confirms my previous statement about the no questions asked beliefs of some Linux followers.
You talk about no questions asked beliefs. I've asked the questions, it seems like it is you who are not answering. Frankly I believe you have a right to your opinion, and I've never said otherwise. I just don't have to agree with it unless you can provide some sort of substantive and credible argument in favor of it.
As for who was the first to be on the offensive with attack strategies, I think you are accusing me of it while you were the original perpetrator (trying to stereotype all Slashdot and/or Linux users as sheep).
Your still missing my point. Linux is still a techy OS. Ask the average desktop user to install it. I don't think so.
Ask the average user to install Windows 95 or 98. Most of them can't do it. Hell, most of the people I work with in IT have a hard time getting it installed so it works right. If it weren't for pre-loads most Windows users would be lost.
That being said, the recent Linux distributions like Mandrake 6.0, Red Hat 6.1 and Caldera 2.3 are about on par with Windows 9x in difficulty. Complete idiots or those with wacky hardware may still have troubles, but I know quite a number of people who I wouldn't consider to be *nix knowledgeable that have been able to sucessfully get Linux installed.
The only OS I know of that is more or less idiot proof for installs is MacOS, and that is really only possible because of Apple's tight-fisted control of the hardware, which many people on this thread have (mostly rightly) assailed.
Besides that, by your logic, NT certainly wouldn't be considered a valid operating system, since most users couldn't get it installed correctly either.
It's still not a viable replacement for Windows( However, I wish it was)
Well, your milage may vary, but there is nothing I find missing from Linux. For me it is Windows that couldn't be a viable replacement for Linux. You have a lot of complaints, but not a lot of useful suggestions as to what needs to be done to correct your supposed deficiencies in Linux. You aren't even very specific about what your complaints are beyond the rather tired installation gripe.
I don't want to hear all the Linux sheep bleating about how Linux has will replace Windows. DON'T TELL ME. SHOW ME!
Well, I really don't care if you don't want to hear it or not. If you don't, then you don't have to read Slashdot.
At any rate, show me where I said that Linux will replace Windows? Although it is certainly more than capable of doing that for me, that isn't even what it replaced in my case. For me it replaced the Apple II and Mac machines I had. I built my first Linux box out of cast-off components and never had or used Windows on it. Neither MS-DOS nor Windows have ever been a primary platform for me. My only exposure to them has been at work where I spend most of my time working on commercial *nixes. I spend at most 10% of my time working in the Windows world, and that results in 90% of the frustration in my work.
Until you can provide me with a more interesting argument, I should say "I'm tired of the Microsoft sheep bleating that Linux can't possibly be viable for anyone anywhere". Give me a break. Your whine is as annoying if not more than the one you complain about. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem, and I don't see you offering any answers.
So did the IBM PC. The schematics and the source code (in Assembly language) for the BIOS is provided in the Technical Reference Manual, which anybody could purchase.
I did say "as open if not more". The difference is those things were included with the Apple II, and extra cost on the IBM PC. The other difference is that Apple did all of this 4 or 5 years before IBM did. Of course by the mid 80's neither company was offering such things, first not for free, later not at all.
So, where's the source code listing for the Macintosh ROMs?
Where was the source code listing for the PS/2 ROMs or the schematics for the MCA bus?
I'm not saying Apple was right either, but you can't blame Apple solely as the only company that tried to close things down around that time.
I think its also worth noting that in many ways, Apple's reluctance to open up the Mac has ensured that it will never be more than a niche player in the market, and IBM's attempt to close the PC architecture with the PS/2 resulted in them losing their mantle of leadership in the PC hardware market.
Closed hardware will do itself in with or without Bill Gates. There is no real evidence that he is really a big supporter of open hardware. Microsoft has always been one of the leading software suppliers for the closed Mac platforms, and Microsoft never developed products for some systems that are were probably more open than the Mac at the time (like the Atari ST or Amiga, for example).
Frankly, I believe that the primary reason that Gates suggested that IBM build a hardware architecture as open as the IBM PC was because he was copying the sucessful formula of the Apple II and S-100 based CP/M machines, not because he was ideologically in favor of open systems.
My whole point is that the poster who suggested we should thank Bill Gates for saving us from Apple was way off track. Not only did we not need saving because I believe that closed systems will do themselves in eventually, but then Microsoft helped keep the Mac around by developing software for it.
My point was that Microsoft/Bill Gates fans are a much larger herd of sheep and even more blindly follow than Linux fans do.
Sure, it is true that there are a few clueless wannabes on Slashdot that could be accurately described by your theory, but I believe they are the minority. I think most Slashdot participants who say "Bill Gates Evil, Linus Good" do so for good and well thought out reasons, not because they are just trying to be part of a group. The goofballs are just more noticeable in the Linux community than the Microsoft world because the Linux community is smaller. But for every mindless wannabe in the Linux world, it seems like there is three or four mindless wannabes in the Microsoft world. How many people out there seem to have the idea that Bill must be the second coming of Jesus just because he is rich?
Groupthink and conformity seem to be more elements of the Microsoft fans than any other group, even Mac fans.
Bill Gates Evil Linus Good That's slashdot's mentality. Period
So your attitude is Bill Gates Good, Linux Evil? I can only judge these two people by what I can see of their actions. The things I see Bill Gates do don't seem good, and I see no evidence that Linus has ever done anything bad. I'm not saying that it is time to appoint Linux for sainthood or anything, but who can dispute the fact that Bill needs to repent of his sins?
It sickens me to see everyone following this OS with such blind faith.
Blind faith? When I first tried Linux back in 1993 I was quite skeptical. But even at 0.99pl7 it showed incredible promise. If Linux does somehow fall, I can always switch to *BSD, or, since I have the source code, I can fix it myself (not just figuratively). Why do most of us have such enthusiasm for Linux? It works. It works well. It lets me do things with a cheap PC that I couldn't afford to do any other way. It smooths over the incredibly ugly PC architecture into something that works like the high end workstations we covet.
If, and only if, in five years time, Linux is still around and formalized into a legitimate operating system, I will stand in Times Square and appologize in my most loudest voice.
Linux has been serving me well for more than 6 years now. It has already formalized into a legitimate operating system. What do you think needs to happen over the next five years to change your mind?
Microsoft is already marketing keyboards and mice. In the 80's they marketed a Z80 plug in card for the Apple II. Microsoft has so far only dabbled a little in hardware, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them delve in further if they thought that it would get them further ahead.
In general though, their mode of operation is to use their monopoly power to twist the arms of the hardware vendors to get their way without having to directly deal with hardware sales.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the number of pro-Microsoft trolls frequenting Slashdot recently, I wouldn't be sure that the number of votes resulting from the Slashdot effect is as skewed as you might think.
imagine how much his lawyers make!
IANAL, but what boggles my mind is what a horrible job Microsoft's legal counsel did in the case considering the amount of money that Microsoft has to spend on lawyers. Even though I believe that Microsoft was obviously guilty, I don't think their legal team did a very good job of representing them.
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I might wonder if Microsoft is using an appeal based on inadequate legal representation as a stalling tactic. Of course that would get laughed out given their pocketbook (that defense generally only works for people who can't afford a good lawyer).
Not being a conspiracy theorist, I don't think that Microsoft going into the trial grossly underestimated the quality of the DOJ's staff (and given the performance we normally see from the government, I can't totally say they didn't have reason to be a little complacent).
Another probability is that Microsoft just doesn't think that even losing this case can stop them, and if people continue to follow them like sheep they might be right, at least in the short run.
What I am saying is that those of us who oppose Microsoft have to step up even more vigilantly now, because Microsoft isn't down yet, and they could be back and madder than ever, so we can't let our guard down.
but they brought to the world cryptic filenames, single tasking OS's,
Actually not only were those things in QD-DOS which Microsoft bought, QD-DOS was a clone of CP/M, from which it borrowed the 8+3 filename convention and general structure (including its single tasking nature). CP/M (written by Gary Kildall who was a former DEC employee) in turn was largely a subset clone of DEC PDP-11 minicomputer operating systems for the S-100 based 8008/8080/Z80 microcomputers of the mid 70's.
Microsoft is free to start innovating any time they want. History shows they haven't done much of it.
If you take actual take home pay per hour worked and take into account regional cost of living differences, I would guess that I make as much if not more per hour as most Microsoft employees who do the same sort of work as I do. I personally don't harbor any real ill will towards the average working joe at Microsoft, its the way their management does business that is the problem.
I wish I could read the coverage on CNN, but I can't because the Javascript they use crashes my Netscape browser (and on about 30 other sites).
That is strange because I have no problems with reading the CNN site with my Netscape browser.
Thank goodness I can turn to Microsoft's superior product.
Thankfully I run an OS where Microsoft's inferior product is not an option.
Who's worried about the stockmarket going up?
People who have put money into shorting stocks, or people who have money in investments that tend to go down when the stock market goes up. People who work in businesses that tend to slow down if the Fed raises interest rates (as they tend to do when the stock market goes up too much), etc. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone rejoices when the stock markets go up.
On the other hand, the competitive long distance networks coming into existance is one of the things that made the growth and commercialization of the internet possible. If you look at the big backbone bandwidth providers like MCI WorldCom, Sprint, AT&T, etc, they are almost all outgrowths of long distance providers. Without the breakup of AT&T, it is likely that there never would have been a competitive market for data networks and the internet as we know it would not have been commercially feasable.
Well, what is good for most people isn't always good for everyone. I think that in general most consumers have benefitted from the breakup of AT&T, but as you note, that may not have been true for everyone. Unfortunately, the $3 long distance network access fee you are talking about isn't even something that is imposed by the phone company, but rather a sort of tax imposed by the feds.
Has no one really considered the implications that no more microsoft would mean?
Yes, but that isn't what is going to happen. Even if Microsoft loses the case (which seems plausable), it won't come to that.
Think of all the businesses depending upon them for tech support etc.
Like losing technical support from Microsoft would be a big problem? Their technical support is not only grossly overpriced, it stinks. There will always be someone there to provide technical support to those that need it. Most likely if companies were forced to shop around they would benefit from finding a better and cheaper support provider.
Let's face it, Microsoft is so entrenched in, well, everything, that destroying it would likely manage to cause major economic consequences to the whole country.
Oh please. Microsoft is no more entrenched than AT&T was before they were broken up. The breakup of AT&T didn't cause dire economic disaster for the country. Customers have benefitted, and competitors to AT&T have flourished. AT&T is still around, and seems like it is going to be around for a long time to come.
Destroying MS by a court ruling would be a *horrible* action.
Even if that is true, who says Microsoft would be destroyed by being broken up (probably the most harsh action that could be taken as a result of this case)?
You are going to leave many, many consumers in a sticky situation.
Why? The copies of Windows and MS-Office they have now won't suddenly disappear. Its not like you couldn't still buy Windows or MS-Office, you would just have to buy them from seperate companies.
People didn't suddenly not have phone service when AT&T was broken up. People weren't suddenly cut off from their supply of gasoline when the Standard Oil trust was broken up.
AT&T didn't go belly up. Their business has changed, but they have still managed to be fairly profitable. Standard Oil is still in existance and profitable.
There is no reason to think that Microsoft would be completely destroyed if they were broken up and forced to play ethically. Predictions of the end of the world are gross exaggerations at best.
If anything, the risks to the economy from problems of Microsoft would probably be reduced because it would be several smaller companies (although probably still pretty large) instead of one huge one. Failure of any individual divisions wouldn't have consequences to the others anymore.
in the 50's, when you more or less HAD TO buy Ford if you were in US.
Ford lost their dominance of the US auto industry in the 1920's and 1930's. The companies that would be put together to build General Motors were able to push Ford into second place because Ford was too slow to improve their designs. Who would buy a 4 cylinder Ford Model T, which was available only in black when you could get a 6 cylinder Chevrolet in any one of several available colors for only a little more money?
Frankly, there was a lot more competition in the US auto market in the 1950's than there is now, in that there were 7 or 8 credible players (GM, Ford, Chrysler, Nash, Hudson, Studebaker, Packard, etc) and now there are only 3. Of course even that is a much better situation than what we have in the desktop OS and desktop office software markets, because even at their strongest, none of the big 3 auto makers controls more than 50% of the domestic market, and that is without considering competition from imports.
It would be nice if the computer industry was able to self-regulate that way, but it doesn't seem like it can when the only OS that seems to be able to make any headway against Microsoft is one that is essentially available for free.
But why should every computer user be punished for the "wrongs" Microsoft committed?
Not every computer user would be punished if Microsoft was punished. Every Microsoft user might be, but not all of us are, contrary to popular belief. What would the downside for Linux, *BSD, Solaris, Mac, BeOS or other non-Microsoft OS users be?
As for Microsoft users, one could argue that they were an enabler of Microsoft, and therefore any punishment to Microsoft that flows down to them would be fair.
I'm not sure I would completely buy that argument, because I think that most Microsoft customers were more or less unwitting or essentially forced into it (due to bundling deals and peer pressure).
At any rate, it might not seem like it in the short term, but in the long run consumers would benefit if Microsoft was forced to play in a competitive market.
What did the breakup do for you and I?
Doubled the phone rates.
I think you are quite mistaken here. Phone rates have gone down dramatically, especially for long distance. Local rates were largely unaffected for many years because of the lack of competition at that level until recently. Now that there are CLECs giving the RBOCs competition, we are starting to see local rates go down as well. It has taken longer than it should at the local level, but I don't see any evidence in my phone bill that consumers have seen anything but benefits from the AT&T breakup.
not being cleanly shaven
How many executives at major corporations have facial hair? Quite a few that I can think of, and I don't watch all that closely. I don't think that having facial hair makes you some kind of wierdo. I also think that there are plenty of clean shaven people who are total wierdos (I've seen plenty of pictures of Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and other certifiable nuts with clean shaven faces).
Seriously, there is little merit in judging Richard Stallman (or anyone else) strictly on appearances. You could bathe him, shave him and put him in a 3-piece blue suit, but I seriously doubt it is going to change him or his message. Would you suddenly take him seriously if he started conforming to your anal-retentive standards? Do you really believe or trust someone just because they look like they just stepped off the pages of GQ?
Would you believe that Microsoft had the foresight to declare time_t as unsigned, which gives them until 2105 to develop a 64-bit OS? :)
:-) The problem with making time_t unsigned, is that it makes it impossible to use time_t values to represent a date/time before January 1, 1970. This is a big problem for some applications which need to represent a wider variation of times.
They will probably need that long.
It also makes their time_t incompatible with normal usage, but that wouldn't be surprising coming from Microsoft.
Dohh. That is what I get for not previewing...
That should read above:
Make that owned
Definitely past tense.
UNIX was originally developed in the 70's under the auspices of AT&T Bell Labs. Because of that, AT&T owns the rights to Unix and it's direct derivatives,
Make that own. They sold USL (UNIX Systems Labs) to Novell quite a long time ago. A few years ago Novell gave the UNIX trademark to X/Open (now The Open Group) and sold the System V code base to SCO.
and receives a royalty for each true Unix sold
Actually, SCO now receives a royalty on each derivative of the System V code base, but The Open Group controls the licensing of the UNIX trademark. It is possible to be UNIX branded and not use a single line of the original AT&T source code and not pay SCO a penny. There are fees charged by TOG, however for getting validated, and parts of their spec for what 'true UNIX' is require commercial software (Motif and CDE for example), which makes it very difficult for a free OS like Linux or the *BSDs to consider getting UNIX branded.
(and no, it probably won't ever be GPL'd)
That is probably correct as far as the System V code base goes (unless SCO was to go belly up or something), however it really doesn't matter that much anymore because there are good free equivalents.
BTW, as for AIX, it differs fairly significantly from other commercial UNIXes as far as the system administration aspects go. Linux and for example, Solaris are much closer to each other than Linux and AIX are. From the point of view of a software developer or an end user, they are all more similar than from the perspective of a system administrator though.
it's still a tax. Isn't that what we're always complaining about with M$?
The difference I see here is that the motherboard manufacturer is going to have to ship some sort of CD anyway (for drivers and stuff). Most likely it would otherwise be mostly empty. If they can cut a deal with Corel to fill that otherwise wasted space with Corel Linux+WordPerfect, then it isn't so bad. It may not really be a 'tax' per-se if this is a mutual advertising swap, and no money changes hands. I can see Corel doing it just to get market share and potential future upgrade earnings. For the motherboard manufacturer it offers them the opportunity to get some product differentiation in a market where that is a difficult thing to find, and also a nice way to make their CD bootable at a much cheaper price than what they'd pay to do that with Microsoft -- potentially that could save them some $$$ in the tech support area.
in most manufacturing environments it costs more to leave something out than to just make everything the same.
Although when it comes to fabbing CD's, it costs the same to press a full CD as opposed to a mostly empty one. You are correcrt if you are talking about whether it would cost more to stock a seperate 'driver only' CD or to sell motherboards with or without a CD.
"Even if not, you are certainly acting like a Microsoft apologist." Certainly not. I just don't agree with the mentality that if you're not with me, you must be against me. I don't MS bash just because it's the fashionable thing to do.
Neither do I. I was critical of Microsoft way before it ever became fashionable. For that matter, in most of the world it isn't.
It seems that a large percentage, no I didn't do a study to get the exact percent, of S.D. readers bash just for bashing sake. I've read alot of incredibly stupid comments, especially on the favoured split-up of MS, posted on S.D. lately.
Go to other forums with a more pro-Microsoft slant, and you can read an equally large and stupid number of comments going the other direction. As I've said before, if Microsoft was to suddenly turn around and start operating in an ethical manner, most of my complaints against them would be gone. I used to be a very vocal anti-IBMer due to them practicing many of the same tactics during the 70s and 80s as Microsoft does now. IBM has made a lot of progress in turning their ship around over the past few years, and my criticisms of them have diminished significantly. I still am somewhat wary about them though, but that will diminish as time goes on if they keep going the same way they have.
Having grown-up with MS, a hint of my age,
Oh please, you make me sound like I was as old as the dinosaurs. I'm probably not that much older than you are, but perhaps I started paying attention to the computer market at an earlier age or have studied up more on the industries history or something.
I've watched the MS opinion go from one similar to Linus to one of utter disdain.
Don't you wonder why that is? Microsoft has nobody but themselves to blame for that. Back in the old days (pre-1981), they were fairly small, and didn't have that much influence. Digital Research's CP/M filled the market niche that MS-DOS and Windows fill now. IBM wasn't even in the PC market. Most of Microsoft's revenue came from royalties on the BASIC interpreter in the ROM of the Apple II and Commodore 8-bit machines and for BASIC interpreter software sold as an add-on to CP/M.
People's opinions about Microsoft would be far different if they really were the benevolent organization that their PR spin machine would have everyone else believe. If they really did just want to innovate and if they were content to win market share just by building good products and doing a good job of marketing them. If they didn't stab their partners in the back and run roughshod over any upstarts that work hard to carve out a new niche in the business.
At any rate, even in the late 70's Gates was not always making a lot of friends. Many in the computer community back then considered him somewhat of a crybaby due to the way he complained about people pirating paper-tape copies of BASIC.
I wonder what public opinion will be of Linus if/when Linux takes off and becomes the OS of Choice.
That is totally up to what Linus does. So far Linus has managed to stay very down-to-earth. As I've said before, I wouldn't rush to appoint Linus to sainthood, but I see no evidence that he is suddenly going to turn into a ruthless megalomaniac bent on forcing every competitor in any remotely related enterprise out of business.
Interesting conjecture.
Only time will tell.
a whole lot of out of context quotes deleted Quote number (1) and (2) seem to indicate a company practicing good business sense. Up to a point. Isn't this the goal of the free market place, to expand and grow? But it needs to be done within the bounds of ethics and legality. Microsoft doesn't know when to quit. They play hardball even when it isn't necessary. In the long run this may come back to haunt them. It is not a coincidence that they have made a lot of enemies and engendered resentment within a lot of people. Microsoft has only themselves to blame for most of the anti-Microsoft backlash we are seeing these days. Isn't this what Linux wants, "A bigger piece of the pie"? Microsoft is hated for doing this. Linux is praised for doing the same.I don't understand? The difference being that Linux can't and doesn't use unethical and/or tactics in order to grow its marketshare. Linux is growing because it works, it works well, and people like it. Quoted # (3) and (4) really require much explanation."Bill needs to repent for his sins" Get real. I assume you are "sin free"? Don't be silly, of course not, however, my sins don't have a negative impact on millions of people. If they did I might behave even more more ethically than I do. That being said, I think if judged on the same set of rules as Bill, that I have little to be ashamed of. Unlike Bill and his 'aw shucks, I am just a nerd' act, I have never made any claims that I am a nice guy. Pure and simple MS bashing by a Linux Zealot. Your arguments could just as easily be summed up as pure and simple bashing my a Microsoft apologist. Microsoft are big boys, why do you think they need you to defend them? Linux has nobody but us little guys -- the users. Without people like us, companies like IBM, Netscape, Corel, etc., would never have heard of Linux.
Have I struck a nerve?
Not really. I've been involved in plenty of active debates over the years and I'm not even mildly perturbed yet.
You went from debating the pros/cons of operating systems to a direct attack on me.
Direct attack? You haven't seen an attack. I believe I've been nothing less than civil. You must be mistaking criticism of your unimaginative debating style and lack of details as a personal attack.
You believe Linux is a valid replacement,
I said it is a valid replacement for me. I didn't ever say it was a valid replacement for everyone. However, I don't think that my needs are that much different than a lot of other people. I challenged you to elaborate on why you think Linux isn't valid. I still haven't heard any reasons.
I happen to believe it hasn't reach that level yet.
And my point is that you make that statement in a very vague way that isn't adding much to the discussion. You haven't given any details as to why you think that.
Having said that, I am not a MS lover.
Even if not, you are certainly acting like a Microsoft apologist. Microsoft are big boys, why do they need you to defend them? They've got all kinds of lawyers and money to buy advertising and pay spokesmen.
Please tell me why my opinion is less valid than yours?
Please show me where I said your opinion isn't valid. Asking you to explain why you have that opinion is a totally different thing, and perfectly acceptable in a constructive, civil discussion. If your opinion is valid, then elaborate on it, and it should stand on its own.
If all you can do is attack me because I disagree with you, that only confirms my previous statement about the no questions asked beliefs of some Linux followers.
You talk about no questions asked beliefs. I've asked the questions, it seems like it is you who are not answering. Frankly I believe you have a right to your opinion, and I've never said otherwise. I just don't have to agree with it unless you can provide some sort of substantive and credible argument in favor of it.
As for who was the first to be on the offensive with attack strategies, I think you are accusing me of it while you were the original perpetrator (trying to stereotype all Slashdot and/or Linux users as sheep).
Your still missing my point. Linux is still a techy OS. Ask the average desktop user to install it. I don't think so.
Ask the average user to install Windows 95 or 98. Most of them can't do it. Hell, most of the people I work with in IT have a hard time getting it installed so it works right. If it weren't for pre-loads most Windows users would be lost.
That being said, the recent Linux distributions like Mandrake 6.0, Red Hat 6.1 and Caldera 2.3 are about on par with Windows 9x in difficulty. Complete idiots or those with wacky hardware may still have troubles, but I know quite a number of people who I wouldn't consider to be *nix knowledgeable that have been able to sucessfully get Linux installed.
The only OS I know of that is more or less idiot proof for installs is MacOS, and that is really only possible because of Apple's tight-fisted control of the hardware, which many people on this thread have (mostly rightly) assailed.
Besides that, by your logic, NT certainly wouldn't be considered a valid operating system, since most users couldn't get it installed correctly either.
It's still not a viable replacement for Windows( However, I wish it was)
Well, your milage may vary, but there is nothing I find missing from Linux. For me it is Windows that couldn't be a viable replacement for Linux. You have a lot of complaints, but not a lot of useful suggestions as to what needs to be done to correct your supposed deficiencies in Linux. You aren't even very specific about what your complaints are beyond the rather tired installation gripe.
I don't want to hear all the Linux sheep bleating about how Linux has will replace Windows. DON'T TELL ME. SHOW ME!
Well, I really don't care if you don't want to hear it or not. If you don't, then you don't have to read Slashdot.
At any rate, show me where I said that Linux will replace Windows? Although it is certainly more than capable of doing that for me, that isn't even what it replaced in my case. For me it replaced the Apple II and Mac machines I had. I built my first Linux box out of cast-off components and never had or used Windows on it. Neither MS-DOS nor Windows have ever been a primary platform for me. My only exposure to them has been at work where I spend most of my time working on commercial *nixes. I spend at most 10% of my time working in the Windows world, and that results in 90% of the frustration in my work.
Until you can provide me with a more interesting argument, I should say "I'm tired of the Microsoft sheep bleating that Linux can't possibly be viable for anyone anywhere". Give me a break. Your whine is as annoying if not more than the one you complain about. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem, and I don't see you offering any answers.
So did the IBM PC. The schematics and the source code (in Assembly language) for the BIOS is provided in the Technical Reference Manual, which anybody could purchase.
I did say "as open if not more". The difference is those things were included with the Apple II, and extra cost on the IBM PC. The other difference is that Apple did all of this 4 or 5 years before IBM did. Of course by the mid 80's neither company was offering such things, first not for free, later not at all.
So, where's the source code listing for the Macintosh ROMs?
Where was the source code listing for the PS/2 ROMs or the schematics for the MCA bus?
I'm not saying Apple was right either, but you can't blame Apple solely as the only company that tried to close things down around that time.
I think its also worth noting that in many ways, Apple's reluctance to open up the Mac has ensured that it will never be more than a niche player in the market, and IBM's attempt to close the PC architecture with the PS/2 resulted in them losing their mantle of leadership in the PC hardware market.
Closed hardware will do itself in with or without Bill Gates. There is no real evidence that he is really a big supporter of open hardware. Microsoft has always been one of the leading software suppliers for the closed Mac platforms, and Microsoft never developed products for some systems that are were probably more open than the Mac at the time (like the Atari ST or Amiga, for example).
Frankly, I believe that the primary reason that Gates suggested that IBM build a hardware architecture as open as the IBM PC was because he was copying the sucessful formula of the Apple II and S-100 based CP/M machines, not because he was ideologically in favor of open systems.
My whole point is that the poster who suggested we should thank Bill Gates for saving us from Apple was way off track. Not only did we not need saving because I believe that closed systems will do themselves in eventually, but then Microsoft helped keep the Mac around by developing software for it.
My point was that Microsoft/Bill Gates fans are a much larger herd of sheep and even more blindly follow than Linux fans do.
Sure, it is true that there are a few clueless wannabes on Slashdot that could be accurately described by your theory, but I believe they are the minority. I think most Slashdot participants who say "Bill Gates Evil, Linus Good" do so for good and well thought out reasons, not because they are just trying to be part of a group. The goofballs are just more noticeable in the Linux community than the Microsoft world because the Linux community is smaller. But for every mindless wannabe in the Linux world, it seems like there is three or four mindless wannabes in the Microsoft world. How many people out there seem to have the idea that Bill must be the second coming of Jesus just because he is rich?
Groupthink and conformity seem to be more elements of the Microsoft fans than any other group, even Mac fans.
Bill Gates Evil Linus Good That's slashdot's mentality. Period
So your attitude is Bill Gates Good, Linux Evil? I can only judge these two people by what I can see of their actions. The things I see Bill Gates do don't seem good, and I see no evidence that Linus has ever done anything bad. I'm not saying that it is time to appoint Linux for sainthood or anything, but who can dispute the fact that Bill needs to repent of his sins?
It sickens me to see everyone following this OS with such blind faith.
Blind faith? When I first tried Linux back in 1993 I was quite skeptical. But even at 0.99pl7 it showed incredible promise. If Linux does somehow fall, I can always switch to *BSD, or, since I have the source code, I can fix it myself (not just figuratively). Why do most of us have such enthusiasm for Linux? It works. It works well. It lets me do things with a cheap PC that I couldn't afford to do any other way. It smooths over the incredibly ugly PC architecture into something that works like the high end workstations we covet.
If, and only if, in five years time, Linux is still around and formalized into a legitimate operating system, I will stand in Times Square and appologize in my most loudest voice.
Linux has been serving me well for more than 6 years now. It has already formalized into a legitimate operating system. What do you think needs to happen over the next five years to change your mind?
Microsoft is already marketing keyboards and mice. In the 80's they marketed a Z80 plug in card for the Apple II. Microsoft has so far only dabbled a little in hardware, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them delve in further if they thought that it would get them further ahead.
In general though, their mode of operation is to use their monopoly power to twist the arms of the hardware vendors to get their way without having to directly deal with hardware sales.