The fact that IBM is "a supplier of a broad array of technology for businesses" is the irrelevant part as is the fact that IBM existed before I did.
"Cutting their PC sales in half just to prove to you they "really meant it" when they created OS/2 doesn't make business sense."
Well that conclusion implies that no more than 1/2 their customers would buy OS/2 (perhaps a generous estimate in IBM's favor). If that was indeed their thinking, than again it indicates a lack of faith in their product (which was probably justified).
It's clear though that the only conclusion that you'll accept is that it's MS's fault so believe on.
"I won't even begin to wonder why you think Apple hasn't tried to compete with Microsoft, or hasn't poured a lot into marketing"
You didn't read my post. I said a PC-based OS. Apple is not directly competing with Windows because to use their OS, PC owners would have to change platforms.
"Digital Research - Published DR-DOS, which was a direct (and fairly successful) competitor for MS-DOS"
DR-DOS had some good features but it was more of a DOS clone than an independent OS. In any case, I don't think DR's experience 15 years ago is sufficient excuse for all the other competitors today. Of course, if they want to complain to the government that MS doesn't let them compete with DOS 4.0, I have no problem with that.
"Microsoft: If you don't stop bundling OS/2 with your computers, we're going to make it close to impossible for you to offer Windows"
Why would IBM want to sell PCs with Windows 3.x when they had OS/2? They either had little faith that OS/2 was superior or they didn't want to spend the money to promote it. As far as Windows 95 is concerned, OS/2 had already failed in the marketplace long before it came out. I sure IBM tried to blame everything on MS and we now know that Judge Jackson was predisposed toward believing such an argument, but it doesn't make it a fact.
I can still remember that the president of WordPerfect Corporation (first, in a long line of WordPerfect owners) stated that they really didn't want to do a version for Windows but since their customers wanted it, they reluctantly agreed to develop it. That reluctance was obvious in their first version that crashed in the first 20 minutes of use and continued to use DOS printer drivers instead of standard windows drivers.
Well, if hackers have found a million holes in Unix, it must be less secure than Windows.:)
Assuming that Unix isn't too screwed up today, I imagine that many of these holes were found at a time when MS was not on hackers' radar screen. They just wanted to hack and they were familiar with Unix. Later anti-MS became a crusade and they had another reason to hack. I can't prove this theory but I base it largely on the percentage of anti-MS posts I see on slashdot. It doesn't mean that the slashdot users are hackers, but I think it is a fair indication of the thoughts of Unix users.
Which of the following competitors have produced a PC-based OS and launched a significant marketing effort to sell it?
Sun - No
AOL - No
Netscape - No
Apple - No
IBM - OS/2 sort of, minimal marketing
BEOS - sort of, may not have resources for marketing
At least some of these companies have the money to aggressively market an OS product but have chosen not to. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and complain to the government about MS's monopoly, it's quite another to put some money on the line and try to compete.
Nice acronym. In both the government and class-action suits there seems to be more involvement by MS competitors than by MS and the plaintiffs.
Perhaps we need some court reform to require third parties to compensate tax-payers for the money spent by the government in processing all these extra documents.
So saying "Hackers do not target MS products because of "percieved" vulerabilities... they target MS because their products are KNOWN and EXPECTED to have holes. " is not flamebait, but saying that "Hackers target MS products for political reasons" is.
I think this flamebait rating is based on political considerations as well.
Again, this will be decided in the marketplace. Most consumers aren't going to run out and buy a new DVD player just to get trivial enhancements. Studios will continue to release movies in the current DVD format for the reasons I've already stated and would surely oppose any law that prevents them from doing so. If the vast majority of consumers owned the new DVD players, they might consider it then, but they're not going to threaten their bottom line for philosphical reasons.
I'm an early DVD user and I can tell you that the studios were very cautious about releasing movies until they were certain there was a sufficient installed base. Look how long it's taking the studios to release DTS versions of their movies. They realize if they change formats too often the consumer won't upgrade.
You're confusing DVD Manufacturers with movie studios. Movie studios are going to continue to release movies that play on current DVD players for a long time to come. DVD players have been around for over 5 years but studios still release all their movies on VHS too. Why? Obviously, because there are still more VHS users than DVD users and they want to sell as many units as possible. No government involvement is needed, the market will handle it quite well.
"You are of course speaking of the civil suits against the company, not the MS vs. DoJ case?"
Yes. That is, after all, the subject at hand.
I think it's important to remember that this case has nothing to do with schools and that schools only came up as a possible settlement. If the case should go to trial I doubt that the punishment will involve schools in any way.
I think the idea of ordering a company to spend money that benefits its competitors is a bit absurd and isn't likely to happen. After all, consumers who purchased Windows are supposed to be the injured party and it's not clear how they would be compensated by having money go to other companies that have no involvement in the suit.
A more likely punishment would be that MS would have to pay a few bucks to each member of the class. On the other hand, these suits rarely go to court and usually are settled by having the company give away discount coupons or something equally dumb. The real winners in these suits are the lawyers.
In other words, MS should be treated more harshly overall than IBM. Based on the title of the original post I thought the point was that MS should be treated the same as IBM as a matter of fairness.
Today Sun Microsystems announced Jeinfeld, a new technology about nothing. "Jeinfeld is a major breakthrough" says Bill Joy, chief scientist at Sun. "By eliminating any functionality whatsoever, Jeinfeld brings the platform-independent dream of Java, Jini, and Jxta fully to fruition."
From the msnbc column: "The company "cannot take any action or threaten adverse action against anybody cooperating or participating in this litigation," said Richard Blumenthal, attorney general of Connecticut."
I guess that could be interpreted to mean that MS would not be able to introduce any new products that would compete with Sun, Oracle or other companies that spearheaded the anti-trust proceedings. It's not clear how that would benefit consumers, but it's never been about them anyway.
It's nice to read a good definition of real-time on Slashdot.
Here's my old-fashioned list of the characteristics of an embedded system:
System has a dedicated function (not general purpose)
Real-time
Code executes only out of ROM
Scarse resources
Code rarely updated
Can be implemented in non-assembly langauge only if you're lucky
Can use an OS only if you're very lucky
The use of desktop operating systems like Linux or Windows wouldn't be appropriate for embedded systems given this list. Of course, the list is too restrictive for today.
I think the new definition of embedded SW is really "any software not running on an established hardware platform". This robs from the term "embedded" any unique characteristic, so I think there isn't much value left in the word.
"And then when your wunderkind has left the company... then what?"
This reminds me of the old saying "If one of your programmers is irreplaceable, fire him".
In my experience, many of these "superprogrammers" leave the company just as a product is being transitioned from a demo to a real product. They know their code is not going to hold up in the real world, so they move on to the next gullible company.
It's perfectly fine if Open Source programmers create whatever they want. The point is that if they want the world to adopt their software, they need to consider a broader audience. If they don't aspire to displacing Closed Source - great. If they do, they'll have to accomodate the so-called Lusers.
"If you want your own GPL-like license then hire your own lawyers and hope that they are as well acquainted with software copyrights as the folks who have worked on the GPL (good luck)."
Since the GPL hasn't been tested in court, we don't really know how well the authors understand software copyrights.
This outcome is typical. Most class action cases end up with the company giving members of the class coupons for discounts on their products or some other non-cash settlement. The real purpose for these suits is to make money for the lawyers, there is rarely any real benefit for consumers.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that IBM is "a supplier of a broad array of technology for businesses" is the irrelevant part as is the fact that IBM existed before I did.
"Cutting their PC sales in half just to prove to you they "really meant it" when they created OS/2 doesn't make business sense."
Well that conclusion implies that no more than 1/2 their customers would buy OS/2 (perhaps a generous estimate in IBM's favor). If that was indeed their thinking, than again it indicates a lack of faith in their product (which was probably justified).
It's clear though that the only conclusion that you'll accept is that it's MS's fault so believe on.
"I won't even begin to wonder why you think Apple hasn't tried to compete with Microsoft, or hasn't poured a lot into marketing"
You didn't read my post. I said a PC-based OS. Apple is not directly competing with Windows because to use their OS, PC owners would have to change platforms.
"Digital Research - Published DR-DOS, which was a direct (and fairly successful) competitor for MS-DOS"
DR-DOS had some good features but it was more of a DOS clone than an independent OS. In any case, I don't think DR's experience 15 years ago is sufficient excuse for all the other competitors today. Of course, if they want to complain to the government that MS doesn't let them compete with DOS 4.0, I have no problem with that.
"OS/2 did have significant marketing"
For example?
"Microsoft: If you don't stop bundling OS/2 with your computers, we're going to make it close to impossible for you to offer Windows"
Why would IBM want to sell PCs with Windows 3.x when they had OS/2? They either had little faith that OS/2 was superior or they didn't want to spend the money to promote it. As far as Windows 95 is concerned, OS/2 had already failed in the marketplace long before it came out. I sure IBM tried to blame everything on MS and we now know that Judge Jackson was predisposed toward believing such an argument, but it doesn't make it a fact.
I can still remember that the president of WordPerfect Corporation (first, in a long line of WordPerfect owners) stated that they really didn't want to do a version for Windows but since their customers wanted it, they reluctantly agreed to develop it. That reluctance was obvious in their first version that crashed in the first 20 minutes of use and continued to use DOS printer drivers instead of standard windows drivers.
Well, if hackers have found a million holes in Unix, it must be less secure than Windows. :)
Assuming that Unix isn't too screwed up today, I imagine that many of these holes were found at a time when MS was not on hackers' radar screen. They just wanted to hack and they were familiar with Unix. Later anti-MS became a crusade and they had another reason to hack. I can't prove this theory but I base it largely on the percentage of anti-MS posts I see on slashdot. It doesn't mean that the slashdot users are hackers, but I think it is a fair indication of the thoughts of Unix users.
No, the way to compete with MS is to compete.
Which of the following competitors have produced a PC-based OS and launched a significant marketing effort to sell it?
Sun - No
AOL - No
Netscape - No
Apple - No
IBM - OS/2 sort of, minimal marketing
BEOS - sort of, may not have resources for marketing
At least some of these companies have the money to aggressively market an OS product but have chosen not to. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and complain to the government about MS's monopoly, it's quite another to put some money on the line and try to compete.
Nice acronym. In both the government and class-action suits there seems to be more involvement by MS competitors than by MS and the plaintiffs.
Perhaps we need some court reform to require third parties to compensate tax-payers for the money spent by the government in processing all these extra documents.
So saying "Hackers do not target MS products because of "percieved" vulerabilities... they target MS because their products are KNOWN and EXPECTED to have holes. " is not flamebait, but saying that "Hackers target MS products for political reasons" is.
I think this flamebait rating is based on political considerations as well.
Again, this will be decided in the marketplace. Most consumers aren't going to run out and buy a new DVD player just to get trivial enhancements. Studios will continue to release movies in the current DVD format for the reasons I've already stated and would surely oppose any law that prevents them from doing so. If the vast majority of consumers owned the new DVD players, they might consider it then, but they're not going to threaten their bottom line for philosphical reasons.
I'm an early DVD user and I can tell you that the studios were very cautious about releasing movies until they were certain there was a sufficient installed base. Look how long it's taking the studios to release DTS versions of their movies. They realize if they change formats too often the consumer won't upgrade.
Hackers target MS products for political reasons. They want MS to look bad and Unix to look good.
You're confusing DVD Manufacturers with movie studios. Movie studios are going to continue to release movies that play on current DVD players for a long time to come. DVD players have been around for over 5 years but studios still release all their movies on VHS too. Why? Obviously, because there are still more VHS users than DVD users and they want to sell as many units as possible. No government involvement is needed, the market will handle it quite well.
"You are of course speaking of the civil suits against the company, not the MS vs. DoJ case?"
Yes. That is, after all, the subject at hand.
I think it's important to remember that this case has nothing to do with schools and that schools only came up as a possible settlement. If the case should go to trial I doubt that the punishment will involve schools in any way.
I think the idea of ordering a company to spend money that benefits its competitors is a bit absurd and isn't likely to happen. After all, consumers who purchased Windows are supposed to be the injured party and it's not clear how they would be compensated by having money go to other companies that have no involvement in the suit.
A more likely punishment would be that MS would have to pay a few bucks to each member of the class. On the other hand, these suits rarely go to court and usually are settled by having the company give away discount coupons or something equally dumb. The real winners in these suits are the lawyers.
Actually, giving away products or selling them at a discount to settle a class-action suit is very common. Rarely do consumers receive cash.
The tobacco cases weren't class-action suits, so a different standard was involved.
Actually, in this case they haven't been found guilty of anything yet. If the cases go to trial MS might walk away without any punishment at all.
In other words, MS should be treated more harshly overall than IBM. Based on the title of the original post I thought the point was that MS should be treated the same as IBM as a matter of fairness.
Today Sun Microsystems announced Jeinfeld, a new technology about nothing. "Jeinfeld is a major breakthrough" says Bill Joy, chief scientist at Sun. "By eliminating any functionality whatsoever, Jeinfeld brings the platform-independent dream of Java, Jini, and Jxta fully to fruition."
Sun Microsystems "The White Paper is the Product"
OK, so Microsoft should NOT be treated like IBM was. IBM was never punished in the US.
You mean punished by the European Union but go unpunished in the US?
From the msnbc column: "The company "cannot take any action or threaten adverse action against anybody cooperating or participating in this litigation," said Richard Blumenthal, attorney general of Connecticut."
I guess that could be interpreted to mean that MS would not be able to introduce any new products that would compete with Sun, Oracle or other companies that spearheaded the anti-trust proceedings. It's not clear how that would benefit consumers, but it's never been about them anyway.
It's nice to read a good definition of real-time on Slashdot.
Here's my old-fashioned list of the characteristics of an embedded system:
System has a dedicated function (not general purpose)
Real-time
Code executes only out of ROM
Scarse resources
Code rarely updated
Can be implemented in non-assembly langauge only if you're lucky
Can use an OS only if you're very lucky
The use of desktop operating systems like Linux or Windows wouldn't be appropriate for embedded systems given this list. Of course, the list is too restrictive for today.
I think the new definition of embedded SW is really "any software not running on an established hardware platform". This robs from the term "embedded" any unique characteristic, so I think there isn't much value left in the word.
"And then when your wunderkind has left the company ... then what?"
This reminds me of the old saying "If one of your programmers is irreplaceable, fire him".
In my experience, many of these "superprogrammers" leave the company just as a product is being transitioned from a demo to a real product. They know their code is not going to hold up in the real world, so they move on to the next gullible company.
It's perfectly fine if Open Source programmers create whatever they want. The point is that if they want the world to adopt their software, they need to consider a broader audience. If they don't aspire to displacing Closed Source - great. If they do, they'll have to accomodate the so-called Lusers.
"If you want your own GPL-like license then hire your own lawyers and hope that they are as well acquainted with software copyrights as the folks who have worked on the GPL (good luck)."
Since the GPL hasn't been tested in court, we don't really know how well the authors understand software copyrights.
"While at the same time charging $40-$50 more for Windows (according to their own internal documents) than the market should have supported."
So you accept this claim at face value without proof? Do always believe what MS says or just this time?
This outcome is typical. Most class action cases end up with the company giving members of the class coupons for discounts on their products or some other non-cash settlement. The real purpose for these suits is to make money for the lawyers, there is rarely any real benefit for consumers.