Really the point is that rather than pumping more revenue into maintaining large old debts, they can use chapter 11 to free up that revenue so that they can restructure and grow the company. Then, in theory, they can pay those debts off when they are in a position that those debts aren't completely sucking up their revenue.
If they were in really dire stratis they'd do a chapter 7. Chapter 11 is usually a way to get above water from the initial costs of starting up, fast growth, etc.
So Microsoft is not including support for Java in.Net and Windows XP. Isn't that interesting? You'd think that a language, soon to be used by 60% of developers, would be worth supporting. I mean if they are not going to support Java, why are they supporting C++? I mean less people are using that, so why support that if you won't support Java?
Of course it's real simple, C++ doesn't threaten Microsoft's monopoly. They'll even support perl because they don't see it as a threat. It's certainly not that Perl has some broader base of developers.
I hate software patents and I think this is yet another silly one but it could provide an interesting way to stop Microsoft's.Net initiative. Isn't the.Net model completely based around the ASP model? So perhaps McAffee could simply refuse to license the patent to Micrsoft. By refusing to license, McAffee could at the very least keep Microsoft tied up in court for a long time.
This isn't to say that McAffee has any vested interest in kicking Microsoft around. In fact Microsoft would probably do their best to destroy McAffee through other means if this happened. But it's an interesting idea.
Am I the only person who remembers a few years back how the release of a new version of Quake (I think Quaker 2) was going to cause brownouts on the Internet? Everybody loves stories of apocalyptic scale carange, so the media will feed it to them whenever they can.
Is Code Red overblown? Of course! It'll still cause some problems, but on the bright side, the publicity is causing people to fix it. So anyhow, I think I'll just not worry about it and play Quake 3 so I can destroy the Internet in a fun way:).
---Steve
You ellude to a good point here about where Microsoft is heading. The problem they face is that their stock price, employee compensation, etc, are all dependant on continued rapid growth. The problem of course is that unless they are going to expand into the Martian software market they can only go so far.
As they start reaching their limits they'll get more deperate. They'll do things like this which, despite bad PR, keeps up the cash inflows. Their new licensing scheme for XP is further evidence that they are desperate to milk every last drop of revenue they can. Also make note of the fact that the release cycles for their products have been getting shorter and providing less significant enhancements. It went from Office 97 to Office 2000 to XP being released in 2001. It went from NT which was released how long ago to Windows 2000 to now, within a year, Windows XP.
Also notice how Microsoft is trying to leverage their control of the desktop to expand into other areas rapidly, trying to keep revenues increasing. X-box to get into the consumer entertainment market. Smart Tags to extend their power back to their media properties.
I just get the sense that Microsoft is a high performance engine that's been redlined for just a little too long. Sure the government will probably settle the anti-trust case but a resultant barrage of private lawsuits is going to at least distract them if not outright hurt them. Add to this slowly growing interest by corporations in using open source software. The odds are stacking against them fast.
Microsoft is desperately flailing around to find ways to keep itself growing. They'll hide their desperation in well developed PR campaigns and certainly the more paranoid amongst open source supporters will make their apparent position seem that much more powerful. But in the end, unless they learn how to survive as a more methodical and slow growing corporation they are going to be in trouble very soon.
Um, when was the last time you had to click on a license agreement when you downloaded GPL'd software? If they can't be held to the terms unless that happens then this opens up a gaping hole through which a lot of software can get hijacked.
Sure, there isn't some giant 1984, or Illuminatus, or Enemey of the state type conspiracy here. But short of that you cannot deny the potential for abuse here. There's a long history of people being harassed and arrested for holding political views that are not in-line with the government or its law enforcement agencies. This just gives them another tool to do so. Just because these abuses aren't necessarily a systemic problem derivded from some conspiracy don't ignore that they happen.
As for your arguments about east germany. They didn't have the computing power we have. All you have to do is tell the camera to keep an eye on somebody and then alert you when some event happens. It won't be as rigorous as a human watching all the time, but it will be rigorous enough for most purposes. Part of the reason we should protest such technology is that it makes having an east german grade secret police possible.
The likely result of Micrsoft FUD will be that some PHB's in the world will decide to stay away from Linux and other GPL licensed products for fear of getting their IP hijacked. So let's picture the worst case scenario here. Let's assume for the moment that IBM completely bailed on Linux, and Red Hat went out of business. That's not going to happen but let's assume it does for the moment.
So Microsoft continues to do its thing as it has been, blocking channels of distribution, locking people into their products, and charging outrageous prices. In the mean time, GPL software will still be there because as long as a small band of skilled people want it to exist it will. So it will evolve, it will grow, and companies will end up using it, as they always have, because it works and does so very cheaply. It might not get the headlines but it will be grinding away in the trenches as it always has.
Maybe Linux fades from the spotlight a bit. Maybe it goes back to being the toy of hackers for while. But fundamentally in the long run it will not die and eventually Microsoft will screw up. Either their monopolistic practices will finally get trimmed by the government, they'll jack their prices up too high, or they'll get behind the 8-ball on development. They aren't infallible, they are just very clever.
When the PC came, they saw it coming and got in early and rode it until the Internet came. Initially they saw a threat, they stumbled a bit but recovered and are now moving to make it their own. Free software though is so contrary to their way of doing things that I don't know that they can change. They certainly aren't going to keep people from making and using GPL software and eventually it will be their demise.
I'd rather make companies compete for my dollars too. The problem is that increasingly there isn't realistic competition because of Microsoft's position. I personally use Linux on my desktop and yet I still have Windows around. Not because it is better, but because in order to run the software I need I have no choice but to keep it.
-The vast majority of games only work under windows
-Office only works on windows and since most of the world tends to revolve around Microsoft's document format this means I have to keep Office and thus windows
-The latest Quicktime hasn't been ported to Linux
-Several websites are designed to only work well with Internet Explorer
If I thought Microsoft was competing and I thought that the average user was getting a real choice, I'd have no issue with them. This, however, is not the case.
I'd be happy to see the blight of microsoft purged from the earth or at least trimmed a bit, but I think this was a good ruling. Jackson's order was poorly thought out and he definitely created the clear impression that he was out to get them (and the impression is the important part here).
I don't like Microsoft but I want them to get their just desserts fairly and for the right reasons. So back to the lower court it goes and if we are lucky it will get worked out while it's still vaguely relevant to our lives.
What I'd be curious to see is what would happen if VA tried to sell slashdot. You can't deny that Slashdot has a strong recognition amongst the geek community so it has value. I'm just trying to imagine IBM owning Slashdot... Actually RedHat would be a far more likely choice but it seems unlikely that Slashdot would go down with the ship.
If the DOD adopts Star Office it means that contractors working with them will have to refrain from sending them documents in Microsoft Office format. This means that those contractors can seriously explore options other than Office and may need to use Star Office for certain purposes.
Ultimately this, like most other business things will get worked out by the marketplace. Would a company pay a per-seat license to install Caldera or would they prefer to pay for a support contract with RedHat and not worry about how many seats they have installed? What kind of support comes with that per-seat license?
There's nothing wrong with them doing this at an ethical level. I mean as long as they follow the terms of the various licenses then it should be kosher. The only problem I see is that I can't imagine people paying per-seat unless it ends up being substantially cheaper than similar offerings from other companies who have simpler licensing schemes.
This could work out to the favor of the original authors if the on-line versions of papers, magazines, etc were actually making substantial profits. In the end what will probably happen is that a lot of content will get pulled because most of them are running in the red anyhow.
Furthermore you can expect that future contracts with authors will contain clauses to build digitial distribution in at no increased price. So in the long run, I suspect most authors won't really get much out of this. A few might get an initial windfall for retroactively licensed content that is particularly valuable but most of it will get chucked.
So they take an existing open source database, repackage it, and retool their support model a bit and suddenly they have a brand new revenue stream with very little effort put in. And people wonder how open source companies make money:).
I'm betting my money this is a repackaged version of PostgreSQL. Does anybody have details?
Ok sure, maybe it is good for internal applications, businees applications and the like they don't make money on but really.
I don't beleive the theory that the money would be made off support. If that is so, no one will be developping the software.
Here's why people will develop the software. If you are supporting the software you have knowledge about where the bugs are which makes it much easier for you to fix them. Furthermore, the more solid the product you are offering, the more likely you can sell it and related support contracts. So it is definitely in your vested interest to contribute to the code.
Furthermore, if you contribute to the code, you'll have a far more intimate knowledge about it, making it much easier for you to diagnose and solve problems in the future. This means reduced time that you have to spend on support calls which means greater efficiency and revenue. It's also much easier to sell your services when you can say, "we've got 10 guys on staff who wrote most of the code so we know how to support it."
The GPL is a form of sharing that assumes some people out there might not want to share in return. So perhaps its assumptions about human nature are not as optimistic as other licenses, but you have to admit that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their assumptions.
Personally I feel most comfortable contributing to the GPL because I know that nobody is going to come along and lock away my work in their own proporietary software. Wouldn't it piss you off slightly if you put years of hard work into a projet and the Microsoft came along and hacked your code to be subtly incompatible and then released it without source code? You can try to argue that if your product is better it will win, but then your product may not be bundled with every computer sold to the public
I had the notion of having a proxy or some browser plugin that would give you a switch you could throw. In one mode it would only allow you access to a set list of sites, in the second mode it would allow you to surf freely. In free surf mode it records everywhere you go to be held in the list of "okay sites".
This way parents can give the child very free reign when they can be around to answer questions and deal with issues that may arise. If the parent can't pay close attention to what's going on for a while they can throw it to the more restrictive mode. Initally the filter may be really constricting but over time it would be very usable. Or maybe you start with a whitelist to bootstrap the filter.
Slashdot Mirror
Really the point is that rather than pumping more revenue into maintaining large old debts, they can use chapter 11 to free up that revenue so that they can restructure and grow the company. Then, in theory, they can pay those debts off when they are in a position that those debts aren't completely sucking up their revenue.
If they were in really dire stratis they'd do a chapter 7. Chapter 11 is usually a way to get above water from the initial costs of starting up, fast growth, etc.
Ouch... okay good point :).
So Microsoft is not including support for Java in .Net and Windows XP. Isn't that interesting? You'd think that a language, soon to be used by 60% of developers, would be worth supporting. I mean if they are not going to support Java, why are they supporting C++? I mean less people are using that, so why support that if you won't support Java?
Of course it's real simple, C++ doesn't threaten Microsoft's monopoly. They'll even support perl because they don't see it as a threat. It's certainly not that Perl has some broader base of developers.
Perhaps this is vaporware, but FUD? What does fear, uncertainty, and doubt have to do with this?
I hate software patents and I think this is yet another silly one but it could provide an interesting way to stop Microsoft's .Net initiative. Isn't the .Net model completely based around the ASP model? So perhaps McAffee could simply refuse to license the patent to Micrsoft. By refusing to license, McAffee could at the very least keep Microsoft tied up in court for a long time.
This isn't to say that McAffee has any vested interest in kicking Microsoft around. In fact Microsoft would probably do their best to destroy McAffee through other means if this happened. But it's an interesting idea.
Am I the only person who remembers a few years back how the release of a new version of Quake (I think Quaker 2) was going to cause brownouts on the Internet? Everybody loves stories of apocalyptic scale carange, so the media will feed it to them whenever they can. Is Code Red overblown? Of course! It'll still cause some problems, but on the bright side, the publicity is causing people to fix it. So anyhow, I think I'll just not worry about it and play Quake 3 so I can destroy the Internet in a fun way :).
---Steve
---
As they start reaching their limits they'll get more deperate. They'll do things like this which, despite bad PR, keeps up the cash inflows. Their new licensing scheme for XP is further evidence that they are desperate to milk every last drop of revenue they can. Also make note of the fact that the release cycles for their products have been getting shorter and providing less significant enhancements. It went from Office 97 to Office 2000 to XP being released in 2001. It went from NT which was released how long ago to Windows 2000 to now, within a year, Windows XP.
Also notice how Microsoft is trying to leverage their control of the desktop to expand into other areas rapidly, trying to keep revenues increasing. X-box to get into the consumer entertainment market. Smart Tags to extend their power back to their media properties.
I just get the sense that Microsoft is a high performance engine that's been redlined for just a little too long. Sure the government will probably settle the anti-trust case but a resultant barrage of private lawsuits is going to at least distract them if not outright hurt them. Add to this slowly growing interest by corporations in using open source software. The odds are stacking against them fast.
Microsoft is desperately flailing around to find ways to keep itself growing. They'll hide their desperation in well developed PR campaigns and certainly the more paranoid amongst open source supporters will make their apparent position seem that much more powerful. But in the end, unless they learn how to survive as a more methodical and slow growing corporation they are going to be in trouble very soon.
---
---
---
As for your arguments about east germany. They didn't have the computing power we have. All you have to do is tell the camera to keep an eye on somebody and then alert you when some event happens. It won't be as rigorous as a human watching all the time, but it will be rigorous enough for most purposes. Part of the reason we should protest such technology is that it makes having an east german grade secret police possible.
---
---
---
So Microsoft continues to do its thing as it has been, blocking channels of distribution, locking people into their products, and charging outrageous prices. In the mean time, GPL software will still be there because as long as a small band of skilled people want it to exist it will. So it will evolve, it will grow, and companies will end up using it, as they always have, because it works and does so very cheaply. It might not get the headlines but it will be grinding away in the trenches as it always has.
Maybe Linux fades from the spotlight a bit. Maybe it goes back to being the toy of hackers for while. But fundamentally in the long run it will not die and eventually Microsoft will screw up. Either their monopolistic practices will finally get trimmed by the government, they'll jack their prices up too high, or they'll get behind the 8-ball on development. They aren't infallible, they are just very clever.
When the PC came, they saw it coming and got in early and rode it until the Internet came. Initially they saw a threat, they stumbled a bit but recovered and are now moving to make it their own. Free software though is so contrary to their way of doing things that I don't know that they can change. They certainly aren't going to keep people from making and using GPL software and eventually it will be their demise.
---
-The vast majority of games only work under windows
-Office only works on windows and since most of the world tends to revolve around Microsoft's document format this means I have to keep Office and thus windows
-The latest Quicktime hasn't been ported to Linux
-Several websites are designed to only work well with Internet Explorer
If I thought Microsoft was competing and I thought that the average user was getting a real choice, I'd have no issue with them. This, however, is not the case.
---
I don't like Microsoft but I want them to get their just desserts fairly and for the right reasons. So back to the lower court it goes and if we are lucky it will get worked out while it's still vaguely relevant to our lives.
---
---
---
There's nothing wrong with them doing this at an ethical level. I mean as long as they follow the terms of the various licenses then it should be kosher. The only problem I see is that I can't imagine people paying per-seat unless it ends up being substantially cheaper than similar offerings from other companies who have simpler licensing schemes.
---
Furthermore you can expect that future contracts with authors will contain clauses to build digitial distribution in at no increased price. So in the long run, I suspect most authors won't really get much out of this. A few might get an initial windfall for retroactively licensed content that is particularly valuable but most of it will get chucked.
---
I'm betting my money this is a repackaged version of PostgreSQL. Does anybody have details?
---
I don't beleive the theory that the money would be made off support. If that is so, no one will be developping the software.
Here's why people will develop the software. If you are supporting the software you have knowledge about where the bugs are which makes it much easier for you to fix them. Furthermore, the more solid the product you are offering, the more likely you can sell it and related support contracts. So it is definitely in your vested interest to contribute to the code.
Furthermore, if you contribute to the code, you'll have a far more intimate knowledge about it, making it much easier for you to diagnose and solve problems in the future. This means reduced time that you have to spend on support calls which means greater efficiency and revenue. It's also much easier to sell your services when you can say, "we've got 10 guys on staff who wrote most of the code so we know how to support it."
---
Personally I feel most comfortable contributing to the GPL because I know that nobody is going to come along and lock away my work in their own proporietary software. Wouldn't it piss you off slightly if you put years of hard work into a projet and the Microsoft came along and hacked your code to be subtly incompatible and then released it without source code? You can try to argue that if your product is better it will win, but then your product may not be bundled with every computer sold to the public
---
---
This way parents can give the child very free reign when they can be around to answer questions and deal with issues that may arise. If the parent can't pay close attention to what's going on for a while they can throw it to the more restrictive mode. Initally the filter may be really constricting but over time it would be very usable. Or maybe you start with a whitelist to bootstrap the filter.
---