Muth point-by-point refutes Maritz' testimony
on
Microsoft and Linux
·
· Score: 1
It is very funny to compare Ed Muth's claims witht he statements senior vice-president made under oath in court.
While Maritz referred to news articles on Linux, Muth claims that these are uncritical and biased in favor of Linux.
While Maritz claimed that there are many and relevant applications for Linux, Muth claims that there are few and that these lack quality on top of that.
While Maritz went to some length to show that Linux has a usable graphical interface, Muth claims it hasn't a good one.
While Maritz claimed that more people are working on Linux than on NT, Muth claims that people will not work voluntarily on Linux.
While Maritz showed that Linux is integrated where it really counts (diagrams and spreadsheet in KOffice), Muth claims that such integration is simply absent under Linux.
While Maritz claimed that Linux would be more of a threat in the future than it is today, Muth claims that Linux is no threat in the future as it lacks a long-term development road-map.
By making claims outside the courtroom that contradict those they make under oath inside, Microsoft isn't exactly helping their case in court.
Maritz from the transcript of 28 Jan 1999, am session:
Linux is a very complete and sophisticated operating system. And there is a lot of work being done to improve it in [spite?] of itself, particularly to make it easier to use and easier for people to set up on their personal computers.
A completely different item is that Maritz estimates the threat of fast downloads over the cable. He thinks that cable companies will have a "strong influence over what software people choose to download onto their computers". To the court Maritz tells that Microsoft is still thinking out what technology is needed to respond to this new challenge. Thus Maritz conveniently ignores to mention that Microsoft is a major investor in cable companies: $500 million in British NTL, $300 million agreed to sink into UPC, $1 billion in ComCast, $1 billion USWest, 10% of RoadRunner, $50 million joint venture with QualComm - that is now rumored to be about to drop its e-mail client, cross-agreement with TCI to have this cable company push Windows CE.
Well, combined with Maritz' statement that:
Clearly we are very concerned about what could happen here. It puts the people that are providing you with that access to the network - the high-speed network - in a relatively strong position to have quite a strong influence over what software you choose to download on your computer. So we believe that the cable network providers and othercompanies, like AOL, who have provided Internet access to large numbers of users could have a much greater say over the software that people run in the future.
Well, this sure looks as if Microsoft is countering the "threat" of downloads over the cable in a way that Linux will never be able to: they buy up the cable companies.
Note that Microsoft posted replies to every single one of the testimonies before the testimony itself was posted.
Given that journalists are more eager to be the first than to be the best informed, they get priority coverage in the media. This strategy has proved to be very succesful as a pre-emptive strike against the impact the actual testimony may have on the public.
Some considerations wrt the allegation of Microsoft having a monopoly with Windows:
Windows and Linux are not "plug-compatible", so they are not in the same market. Rockefeller could have a monopoly in oil, even though both are fuel and can to some extend be used for the same purposes. One can make cars running on coal, but one can't throw coal in the gas tank and then drive away. Microsoft has a 100% market share and hence a monopoly in the operating systems that conform to the "Windows standard". Compare this with the numerous companies that sell Linux. There is competition in the market for Linux OS's, but none in the market for "Windows compatible OS".
Does the existence of the Dutch language demonstrate that the US standardization on the English language is continually threatened and engaged in fierce competition with Dutch?
Microsoft's successful regulation of the computer industry by lowering prices for large customers, but raising it again when those customers have the guts to pre-install non-Microsoft software constitutes "denial of entry". On this kind of regulation see my: "Regulation through taxation".
And while I'm at it, a blatant plug: if you are interested in a regular analysis of Microsoft's position and actions, you may be interested in visiting billwatch.net
Slashdot Mirror
- While Maritz referred to news articles on Linux, Muth claims that these are uncritical and biased in favor of Linux.
- While Maritz claimed that there are many and relevant applications for Linux, Muth claims that there are few and that these lack quality on top of that.
- While Maritz went to some length to show that Linux has a usable graphical interface, Muth claims it hasn't a good one.
- While Maritz claimed that more people are working on Linux than on NT, Muth claims that people will not work voluntarily on Linux.
- While Maritz showed that Linux is integrated where it really counts (diagrams and spreadsheet in KOffice), Muth claims that such integration is simply absent under Linux.
- While Maritz claimed that Linux would be more of a threat in the future than it is today, Muth claims that Linux is no threat in the future as it lacks a long-term development road-map.
By making claims outside the courtroom that contradict those they make under oath inside, Microsoft isn't exactly helping their case in court.A completely different item is that Maritz estimates the threat of fast downloads over the cable. He thinks that cable companies will have a "strong influence over what software people choose to download onto their computers". To the court Maritz tells that Microsoft is still thinking out what technology is needed to respond to this new challenge. Thus Maritz conveniently ignores to mention that Microsoft is a major investor in cable companies: $500 million in British NTL, $300 million agreed to sink into UPC, $1 billion in ComCast, $1 billion USWest, 10% of RoadRunner, $50 million joint venture with QualComm - that is now rumored to be about to drop its e-mail client, cross-agreement with TCI to have this cable company push Windows CE.
Well, combined with Maritz' statement that:
Well, this sure looks as if Microsoft is countering the "threat" of downloads over the cable in a way that Linux will never be able to: they buy up the cable companies.
Given that journalists are more eager to be the first than to be the best informed, they get priority coverage in the media. This strategy has proved to be very succesful as a pre-emptive strike against the impact the actual testimony may have on the public.
Some considerations wrt the allegation of Microsoft having a monopoly with Windows:
And while I'm at it, a blatant plug: if you are interested in a regular analysis of Microsoft's position and actions, you may be interested in visiting billwatch.net