When are those panels of randomly blinking lights going to make it on the market? I have been waiting some time.
Already on the market - if you had the right copy of Softside and a TRS-80. I've got the copy of Softside stuck away in a box somewhere... and a TRS-80 Mod I also in a box somewhere... might even be the same box.
The movie seems to revolve around the 3 robotic laws that Asimov came up with. So, the title seems appropiate in at least acknowledging that.
Dungeons & Dragons had elves, dwarves, and wizards in it. It is certainly inspired by JRR Tolkien's work. But you don't see it being called "Lord of the Rings", do you?
now... if only microsoft would invest that time and money into their security initiative.
You're mistaking the "security initiative" for a technical initiative. It is actually a marketing initiative. This recent development is also about marketing. So, in effect, it is actually related.
You don't see greedy/selfish people work selflessly for 3 years with no return on investment.
You haven't been paying attention to the IT industry, have you? The issue is not a lack of return on investment. The issue is whether they expect a return on their investment in the long term - and whether that expectation has any merit. The problem arises when their expected return fails to materialize and they use other means to try and force their expectations.
You can trace this behavior throughout the IT industry. Look at RAMBUS and its submarine patents. Look at SCO's origional concepts of IP licensing (as described by Ransom Love) to that strategy's direction over the last year (under Darl McBride).
Do greedy people work selflessly? Perhapse not. But they will work with no immediate income if they think there is a payoff in the end.
You might want to pay close attention to the little emoticon you quoted. You know... the winky thing:;)
I don't know about your culture, but from where I come from when you say something and then wink it has certain connotations. In this case, it seems to imply a joke.
I should hope most people around here realize that Microsoft learned how to do business from IBM. In true Star Wars style, the aprentice became the master.
Assume that MS is competant (a reasonable assumption, since we're dealing with legal and corporate matters).
It goes without saying that Microsoft is competent. They would not be in the position they are today without some degree of business acumen. The reason folks in this environment don't honor Microsoft for their core competency is because we tend to honor technology above business. And when technology is sacrificed for the sake of business, we tend to take a dim view.
They want this suit to hurt Linux's reputation.
This is a really important observation: ruining Linux's reputation has strategic importance. Microsoft has long had a strategy embodied by the phrase "cutting off their air supply." This is usually done by impacting the revenue to a product. Most competing technologies are based on a product offering that must generate a certain level of revenue (either directly or indirectly) or it is no longer justifies its continued support and development. Once support for an IT product is removed from the market, the market will eventually move to whatever competitors remain. Therefore, if one can impact the revenue stream for a product enough, one can kill a competing technology. And then reap the benefits of being the last product standing.
Linux offers a challenge to this strategy. Individual companies leverage Linux for their own profit. However, impacting the revenue of one company will simply remove a single business entity while leaving the technology itself (Linux) intact... and likely still being supported and developed by other entities. One can not bury Linux by attacking a single company's Linux-based revenue stream.
On even more simple terms, Linux is not based on hard currency. But it does run on its own currency; reputation.
Linux is enjoying an increased level of support from hardware and software developers due to its increasing popularity / reputation. Along with that comes an increased level of adoption as various entities from single users to enterprise environments deploy Linux. Which increases the demand for hardware and software offerings. And also increases the available resources to further develop of the platform. This increased demand and resources feed back to Linux's reputation. It becomes a nice regenerative loop.
It should be pretty obvious that the "cutting off their air supply" strategy is still applicable, it just has to be modified to attack a different form of currency. Instead of impacting revenue or hard currency, Microsoft will have to impact the reputation of the competing technology. It must harm Linux's reputation. Which, in turn, reduces or erodes Linux's adoption and resources.
Someone needs to tell SCO that the GPL text is not a joke. There's a reason it shows up again and again. And no, it's not because it was copied from their code base.
I'm working a crappy low paying job so could really use the great publicity the lawsuit would bring.
Wil Wheaton tried that approuch with Gator (spyware). I'm not sure if it did him any good. But it might be fun to poke at SCO (rabiddog) a bit in any case. It was certainly funny with Gator (spyware).
Within 12 months, Apple will give away new Macs to hundreds of schools around the US. There will be a commercial where young Irving will type on a screen "we are still going to use free Unix". SCO will release a statement claiming that we have entered a new era in operating systems.
Oh, you mean "Open Source as what opensource.org defines it" not "open". There are plenty of examples of "open" sourcecode on MSDN that you can incorporate into your software, with less restrictions than the GPL.
Alright. So exactly what IS the license? Do you have a link?
You'll note that OSI's definition meets quite a few more licenses than simply the GPL. Some have more restrictions, some have less. But there is a core set of requirements to be considered Open Source.
The whole reason to go about setting up this definition is because of the confusion about what "open" means. It is an important distinction since it is rather easy to cloud the issue by making source code available under a restrictive, proprietary license.
Obviously, you wish to push for confusing the issue.
Deride OSI all you want. Call people names like "zealot". But if you want to make comparisons, or even enter this conversation, you're going to have to accept certain conventions - even if you wish to disagree with them.
There is an interesting line of thought twisting through this work. Let's follow it.
We support a project that brings us some indirect value. However, we do not in any way force any code republishing requirements upon the folks who'd like to reuse our code (we have a strict "no GPL" policy; our code is BSD licensed). We don't depend on a community of volunteers to turn dasBlog into a dominant blogging tool that we can benefit from by commerically supporting it. We believe that if we wanted to benefit from the software directly, we would have to rearchitect and rebuild it (or at least restrict ourselves to newtelligence contributions) and then sell it as a fully supported commercial product. My personal sense of respect and fairness tells me that I will not and should not exploit the others guys that have contributed to the free version of dasBlog. It's their hobby and their work is their work. I think a company like Red Hat, which is a public company (which did yield a significant "going public benefit" to their founders) and is profiting from the work of countless unpaid volunteers and enthusiasts, is a very clever, but deeply unethical entity.
I do believe in giving and I do believe that there is value for the community at large in sharing insight through source code. But we don't share the view that software is free or should be free. Someone pays for it. We have an investment in software that is free for others to use, MySQL has, HP has, IBM has, Sun has and - believe it or not - even Microsoft has. We do that as part of a well thought out and well understood business strategy.
Here are the points:
BSD is the better license due to a lack of restrictions (as opposed to the GPL)
It would be unethical to sell BSD licensed code that the seller did not develop
RedHat is unethical for selling GPL'd code that they did not develop
Many have a vested interest in "free to use" software - including Microsoft.
The interesting piece here is that both the BSD and GPL licenses fully allow for others to use their work. Heck - that's what it's there for. How this becomes unethical is a curisoity. And how this meshes with Microsoft's selling of BSD and GPL software is even more curious.
There is another really interesting point here. Note that he mixes various software models under the banner "free to use"? What does that mean? Hardly the same thing as Open Source or Free Software. Of course, by "free" he means "gratis". The point is subtle but important. Ever read an EULA for Microsoft's "free to use" software? It gets interesting - especially when you hit the restrictions to how you can use that software.
This confusion quickly leads to the next point...
Also, if you say that I am confusing "free software" and "open source". I am not. "Open" is the political argumentation line, "free" is the economic argumentation line of the same thing.
The author claims to not confuse the issue - and then promplty confuses the issue. I can understand a business-focused mind getting tripped over what "free" means. But the claim that "free" can only have economic meaning is silly. And then to go further and claim that this gratis conotation is really what Open Source is about is simply absurd.
Of course, there is a good reason to create this confusion. Let's go back to his earlier statement:
We have an investment in software that is free for others to use, MySQL has, HP has, IBM has, Sun has and - believe it or not - even Microsoft has.
Remember the issue about restrictions of use? Keep in mind that within this mixed bag we have products that have restrictions and products that do not. This is the real issue.
The focus of licenses like BSD and GPL is restrictions. Not price. Something that Microsoft and its supporters like to obscure for some odd reason.
Under the GNU licence, I could try charging for software that I also provide the source for, but I suspect that success stories for that will be as rare as registrations for "free" software in the BBS days. Some made a living at it, but most were lucky to see some beer money.
How's the shareware market doing? Heck - how about even just small proprietary software companies? Or mid to large ones for that matter?
Business is rough. Most fail. It doesn't matter if you're pushing bits, boxes, or burgers.
I could also make a living at support/admin/customization. But why bother developing anything (other than to be first in line for support/admin/customization contracts for my own product)?
Maybe you should ask IBM, RedHat, etc. why they bother developing?
The exact same argument could be applied to, say, IBM's open-source contributions.
True. But then - IBM's contributions to whatever open source project they work on are available to everyone. Microsoft included.
And Microsoft does sell open source (GPL'd even) software. If you dig enough (MS has burried this information), you'll find that their Services For Unix product in chock full of GNU applications. And, of course, this and several outer pieces are based on BSD code.
The point is - if you're going to make a big deal about Microsoft's actions, you better be sure your argument is on solid moral ground. Perhapse neither Microsoft nor IBM's motivations are entirely alturistic. However, IBM is clearly providing the better service. And the more friendly form of "free".
If he hates open so much, why do they release do much source code via MSDN? Oh you mean he "hates open" because he doesn't give away the source code (intentionally anyway) to Windows and Office?
What code are they releasing? Sure - I wouldn't expect the source to the latest Windows or Office. But I would hope your examples include at least SOME substantial pieces of software.
And under what license? This is one thing that's hard to get a Microsoft Zealot's head around; access to source code does not make something open source. It's as much about what you can do with that source code as getting it.
That made me laugh, and it's sad but true, it literally took one of the greatest achievements in film making to get the movie industry to recognize the fantasy genre as a valid medium of film making, not just a bunch of movies for fanboys in costume.
Are you so sure that Hollywood sees fantasy as anything but? Sure - Jackson was able to fight the good fight and create this epic (in both film and production). But it's important to note that he had to fight to keep his vision intact. Jackson did a good job (critics aside). But will anybody else do as well?
The important thing here isn't that the LotR trilogy was fantasy. It's that it was an epic work, a good story, and a good series of films. That just happened to be a fantasy.
For these kind of changes to be made, it obviously has to be legislated, I take it that's what you're arguing, yes?
It already is.
Okay I think I see what you're getting at, but I don't see why the free market can't decide this themselves.
Because occasionally the system breaks. Some entity finds itself in a position of leadership and uses anti-competitive behavior to guarantee future success. The whole point of a free market is competition. If that competition is being eliminated by the actions of one or more individuals, then it is no longer a truely free market. And that's why there are anti-trust laws. Think of it as an occasional tweak or reset to an otherwise smoothly running system.
In the current system, if Dell just wants to have Linux boxes, they can, and they will be able to undercut their competetitors by at least $100 since licensing fees no long exist. Would this cause a massive sales shortfall? That really depends on how happy consumers are with their systems. It'd be interesting to talk to some of the people at Dell why they stick with MS stuff. Obviously they must know something about Linux, and they must have some enlightened theory why consumers would hate it.
That's easy. Software. Windows is supported by the majority of desktop software producers - in many cases, exclusively. If Joe User is comfortable with Quicken, he's not going to want anything that doesn't enable him to keep running Quicken. There is no Quicken for Linux.
Forget the user-friendly issue. I agree that it is a very valid point (and something Linux needs continued work on). However, for the most part, it is a red herring. After all, if user-friendliness was the issue, Apple would dominate. I'm not an Apple fan - haven't ever owned a single piece of Apple hardware. But they have always had the easier, "Just Works" interface. Yet they're a niche player bouncing back from the edge of oblivion.
Steve Ballmer provided endless amusement with his "monkey dance". But antics aside, he was right. It's about developers. Not for geek factor. But to produce a 3rd party product line that re-enforces Microsoft's dominance.
Could there be a Quicken for Linux? Sure. But first there has to be a suitably large enough market for it. And thus we're back to the previously mentioned catch-22.
But as an obvious proponent of the free market I think the onos should be on the competetitors to find other ways of reaching their consumers by other means, rather than vendor agreements. Adobe, ICQ/AIM/Trillian, ZoneAlarm, Winamp, WinRAR, and CDex are all monumental examples of unbundled software (well maybe not AIM) that have succeeded under these pressures.
Yes. I agree. Assuming the market is healthy enough to allow competition.
Having said that... let's look at your examples...
Adobe - by this I assume you're talking about Adobe's PDF document format and Acrobat? PDF is an interesting case. Originally, Acrobat cost. The format didn't catch on. Then Adobe gave away their reader and PDF started catching on. Furthermore, Adobe licenses the PDF specification on a royalty-free, non-exclusive basis. Now one can find a rather large collection of PDF related software for a fee or free (and Apple's OSX uses PDF extensively). Surely a success story. But does Microsoft have a competing format?
ICQ/AIM/Trillian - ICQ and AIM are both AOL with slightly different markets... both heading towards increased integration. It could be argued that these services are a loss leader for AOL. Trillian is a nice little app - but they're based off of reverse-engineering the existing chat architectures. Microsoft competes with their own MSN messenger (which
1. Do away with bundling. I think the parent of my post mentioned why this wouldn't be a good idea. You didn't actually reply to any of my concerns for the average user. Rather you seemed more concerned with breaking up the 'monopoly' more than anything. But let's look at such a proposition:
The implication here seems to be enacting a vendetta at the cost of the consumer. That's a grave mischaracterization. There are a couple things to keep in mind. First, a monopoly can sometimes offer some benefit to consumers (and in some cases it is the only way to do things - consider state-sponsored monopolies and telecommunications). However, this benefit is often short-lived once a competitive threat is removed from the market. Consumers will win in the long run if we have a healthy market open to continued competition. After all, our IT industry itself produced many examples where market leaders misunderstood or simply missed important turning points. If a market leader is able to leverage their position illegaly to eliminate competition, it is just as likely we will miss out on true innovation and growth within that market.
Am I concerned with breaking up a monopoly? Yes. That is the long-term view. However, I don't believe the short-term impact is so grave...
Clearly Joe-User requires a browser, email programs, basic firewalls, media players, instant messaging, etc. These all come bundled, much to their convenience.
...
But let's see what happens when we do away with the bundling. How do we do this exactly? Don't ship XP with network support? With a media player? With a web browser? Isn't that going to be a pain for someone not so knowledgable with computers?
By the way this reads, I wonder how the heck we've managed to stumble through over a decade of personal and business computing without bundling. The simple answer to this is that even the computing novice will soon propagate their desktop with software from other sources without bundling. Assuming I'm proposing eliminating bundling entirely. Which I'm not.
"Ahh but I never said not to put ANY of that stuff on that computer, just not MS stuff." Well this doesn't make sense either. Should we have 3 separate browsers on each Windows machine? Or how about just Firefox? But that really wouldn't be fair to IE would it.
I've never said Microsoft shouldn't produce additional software. Nor should it never be included. The issue is the requirement to bundle this software for the much-needed discounted licensing for Windows.
Why install 3 separate browsers? Indeed. If Dell does a marketing deal with Opera, why should they also have to include IE? If a part of HP's branding with Apple involves including pre-installed Quicktime and a link to it on the desktop, so be it. HP shouldn't be pressured to include Windows Media Player or limit their involvement with Apple and its technology.
Keep in mind that this is the exact issue involved with Microsoft and Netscape. OEMs who wished to install or favor Netscape in their desktop offerings faced losing the same licensing other, more compliant OEMs received.
And oddly enough, this same issue came to light before Netscape. This particular scuffle involved AOL and the announcement of Microsoft's plans to create a competitor: MSN. Just who gets links on the desktop? But then the Internet popped up and the industry didn't seem as interested in the issues being raised.
Incidentally, you'll note that nowhere do I state that Microsoft shouldn't offer their own supplementary apps. I don't claim that the Dells and Compaqs should not include Microsoft apps in their bundling deals. The issue is that Microsoft should not be able to force bundling on an OEM who might otherwise choose other offerings.
Not to pick on Evo's crew, it's just an endemic attitude problem with OSS developers.
...
Oh - and non-OSS devs have the same attitude, but users can't interact with them. Feedback goes through sales/support/marketing droids before hitting the non-OSS devs.
So what you're saying is that you want a few layers of sales / marketing between you and the dev's?
I'm not aware of one. And that's my point. Cisco dominates the network hardware market. Yet they are very carefull not to abuse this position. Keep in mind that Cisco is still an agressive competitor.
However I am familiar with A&P Grocers, anther supposed monopoly in the 1930s. They too had litigation against them. However it wasn't litigation that ruined them, it was failing to respond to market trends.
Who says we're talking about ruining a company? Anti-trust litigation is about trying to rememdy an imbalance in a market. Not destroying a company.
I know one of the themes that comes out of Slashdot is "destroy Microsoft." I don't agree with it. I believe, given a fair market and time, Microsoft will find itself tracing IBM's footsteps.
About Apple: Earlier you said Apple could have won the desktop market if they bargained with manufacturers, and now you are saying this is false?
This is really an entirely unrelated subject. But yea - maybe Apple would have been a leader if they had stopped being a hardware company. Microsoft's success is more about IBM losing control of its platform design. Whether Apple could manage to pull off the same thing is in question (some might point out that they made a half-attempt at this and failed miserably).
But that wasn't the point. You said that Apple would make a suitable candidate for an out of Microsoft's strong-arm sales tactics. I'm pointing out that they are not.
I do agree that much of where Apple is today is its own doing. Apple won where IBM lost. There's a certain irony to this.
And the most important part of all: Vendors need Windows. What!? No they don't! Windows sucks, doesn't it? I mean isn't that what Slashdot is about? The truth is Windows does not such as bad as they say. You claim there are not enough applications avaiable for Linux ( I disagree, but it only furthers my point) and that vendors need Windows. Therefore are Microsoft doing them a favor by discounting their products?
C'mon. Let's dispense with this nonesense about what Slashdot is all about. You and I both know that any vendor selling x86 desktops must offer Windows as an option. Linux would be fine for many customers - right up to the point where they try to run Quicken or the majority of games available. And that means right now Windows is needed.
Does this make these discounts a favor? Sure. But with strings attached. Not all the OEMs have been thrilled about those strings.
One final note on this. It isn't all about Windows vs. Linux. Heck - its not even about the OS. The Netscape isue was all about Windows applications (although the bigger picture involved making the OS irrelevant).
So what exactly are you proposing? Making people use Linux? Preventing people from using Windows? But lots of people love Windows. By destroying these 'sweetheart' deals it will drive up the price of the computer much to the ire of the consumer.
Nothing so drastic. Let Windows compete in an open market. Do away with the bundling and strings-laden contracts. I have to admit that how to ensure this happens is the Big Question. Microsoft is hardly a willing participant.
I'll say it again: All it takes to dethrone MS is to make a nice, user-friendly Operating system supported with basic applications that people will want.
And that's the Catch-22. The applications aren't all there. Sure - there are great suitable subs for some things. But people want to run what they are used to - what they trust. You'll need the newest games (slowly happening). You'll need the trusted stand-bys (like Quicken, Quickbooks, etc). But these won't come until the market matures. Which has more to do with adoption than anything else. Which, in turn, would get a big boost if other major leaders in IT hardware (such as Dell) made desktops pre-loaded with Linux available. But they're not likely to do this if it involves losing their deals with Microsoft.
Anti-trust laws are fradulent and meant to appease poor competetitors.
Really. Then where's all the other anti-trust lawsuits against other industry leaders? Heck - take Cisco Systems alone. Where's the suit over their dominance of networking and associated hardware?
And yes I did describe the 'anti-competetive' behavior, except it's not anti-competetive at all. Isn't offering a lower price anti-competetive?
You oversimplify. It's one thing to underbid a competitor. It's another to try to slash-and-burn a market. Or abuse one's position to force out competition. Which leads to the next point...
However I don't see what's so wrong about going to computer vendors, and offering them discounts if they solely distribute MS stuff. Couldn't Apple have done the same thing?
No, they couldn't. Apple does not dominate the desktop market. Furthermore, their market is not quite the same as Microsoft's. After all, you don't see MacOS machines from Dell.
Couldn't these vendors have told MS to stick it? Couldn't vendors take neither road and offer Linux, which doesn't cost them a dime? Of course they could. But they don't, and it has nothing to do with monopoly accusations.
No. Vendors need Windows. The vast majority of consumer software runs on Windows. There is some growth towards consumer software for Linux-based systems. But until that market matures, if the OEM wants to move products based on x86 hardware, they have to have Windows.
Now, of course, Microsoft never said they wouldn't sell to an OEM if they started offering products based on another OS. But you have to consider that profit margins on hardware are tight. An increase in licensing cost for Windows could be fatal.
Microsoft knows this. And this is why they threatened to axe their sweetheart deals for anybody providing a foothold for a competitor. That has everything to do with Microsoft's monopolistic business practices.
A true monopoly is the only provider of a good or service.
...
Now here's where Linux comes in. Now companies have a third option: pay Microsoft, do without, or use Linux. That's competeition. As a result people that previously would have done without can use Linux. That is the fundamental difference between a true monopoly and simply having market dominance, and it is a huge difference.
The issue that you're missing is that it doesn't have to be a "true monopoly" to run afoul of anti-trust laws. The point is not that competitors do not exist. The issue is whether one's market dominance is being used illegally to shut out a market to competitors.
Let's say you are the manager at Dell. You can choose to only ship cpus with XP at $100 per head, or ship different computers, but any cpus that have XP will cost $300.
...
So as a manager at Dell, you COULD tell MS to take their deal and shove it, and only have Linux boxes. But you would hardly sell a single computer. Why? Because you neglected 99% of the market.
You do realize that you've just described one example of anti-competitive behavior that was unearthed during the Microsoft trial, right?
You also touched on the Netscape issue. At one point, Netscape had the superior browser. However, they were soon losing revenue as Microsoft refused to play nice with any OEMs who shipped with Navigator featured on the desktop. Just one example of Microsoft's "cut off their air supply" tactics.
In continuing the reverse order of your post, you mentioned Linux ease-of-use. You further state:
Yes Business does contain a lot of factors, competition certainly being one. This does not explain why the Linux community has failed to make a product as user friendly as XP. Stability is meaningless without functionality. They may as well be using a cinder block to do word processing.
Microsoft proved that user-friendliness only needs to go so far. The real issue is price and availability. After all, if usability was the big motivation, Apple would have won the desktop war years ago. But Apple wasn't riding the move of the industry from proprietary hardware to commoditized hardware. Microsoft was.
Otherwise, I'm not going to get in to a big discussion about Linux's state of user-friendliness. This is well-trodden territory. You claim its akin to using a cinder block for word processing. My own experience is different. I'll leave it at that.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I'm sitting here shaking my head right now. I'm in complete disbelief that this kind of crap gets modded up.
What exactly is the problem? It's attracted too many trolls?
Again - I agree. The same old Slashdot-trolling and Microsoftie ranting.
Ahhh. I see you've read the Slashdot Karma HOWTO.
Already on the market - if you had the right copy of Softside and a TRS-80. I've got the copy of Softside stuck away in a box somewhere... and a TRS-80 Mod I also in a box somewhere... might even be the same box.
Dungeons & Dragons had elves, dwarves, and wizards in it. It is certainly inspired by JRR Tolkien's work. But you don't see it being called "Lord of the Rings", do you?
You're mistaking the "security initiative" for a technical initiative. It is actually a marketing initiative. This recent development is also about marketing. So, in effect, it is actually related.
You haven't been paying attention to the IT industry, have you? The issue is not a lack of return on investment. The issue is whether they expect a return on their investment in the long term - and whether that expectation has any merit. The problem arises when their expected return fails to materialize and they use other means to try and force their expectations.
You can trace this behavior throughout the IT industry. Look at RAMBUS and its submarine patents. Look at SCO's origional concepts of IP licensing (as described by Ransom Love) to that strategy's direction over the last year (under Darl McBride).
Do greedy people work selflessly? Perhapse not. But they will work with no immediate income if they think there is a payoff in the end.
You might want to pay close attention to the little emoticon you quoted. You know... the winky thing: ;)
I don't know about your culture, but from where I come from when you say something and then wink it has certain connotations. In this case, it seems to imply a joke.
I should hope most people around here realize that Microsoft learned how to do business from IBM. In true Star Wars style, the aprentice became the master.
It goes without saying that Microsoft is competent. They would not be in the position they are today without some degree of business acumen. The reason folks in this environment don't honor Microsoft for their core competency is because we tend to honor technology above business. And when technology is sacrificed for the sake of business, we tend to take a dim view.
This is a really important observation: ruining Linux's reputation has strategic importance. Microsoft has long had a strategy embodied by the phrase "cutting off their air supply." This is usually done by impacting the revenue to a product. Most competing technologies are based on a product offering that must generate a certain level of revenue (either directly or indirectly) or it is no longer justifies its continued support and development. Once support for an IT product is removed from the market, the market will eventually move to whatever competitors remain. Therefore, if one can impact the revenue stream for a product enough, one can kill a competing technology. And then reap the benefits of being the last product standing.
Linux offers a challenge to this strategy. Individual companies leverage Linux for their own profit. However, impacting the revenue of one company will simply remove a single business entity while leaving the technology itself (Linux) intact... and likely still being supported and developed by other entities. One can not bury Linux by attacking a single company's Linux-based revenue stream.
On even more simple terms, Linux is not based on hard currency. But it does run on its own currency; reputation.
Linux is enjoying an increased level of support from hardware and software developers due to its increasing popularity / reputation. Along with that comes an increased level of adoption as various entities from single users to enterprise environments deploy Linux. Which increases the demand for hardware and software offerings. And also increases the available resources to further develop of the platform. This increased demand and resources feed back to Linux's reputation. It becomes a nice regenerative loop.
It should be pretty obvious that the "cutting off their air supply" strategy is still applicable, it just has to be modified to attack a different form of currency. Instead of impacting revenue or hard currency, Microsoft will have to impact the reputation of the competing technology. It must harm Linux's reputation. Which, in turn, reduces or erodes Linux's adoption and resources.
Someone needs to tell SCO that the GPL text is not a joke. There's a reason it shows up again and again. And no, it's not because it was copied from their code base.
Wil Wheaton tried that approuch with Gator (spyware). I'm not sure if it did him any good. But it might be fun to poke at SCO (rabiddog) a bit in any case. It was certainly funny with Gator (spyware).
Within 12 months, Apple will give away new Macs to hundreds of schools around the US. There will be a commercial where young Irving will type on a screen "we are still going to use free Unix". SCO will release a statement claiming that we have entered a new era in operating systems.
Alright. So exactly what IS the license? Do you have a link?
You'll note that OSI's definition meets quite a few more licenses than simply the GPL. Some have more restrictions, some have less. But there is a core set of requirements to be considered Open Source.
The whole reason to go about setting up this definition is because of the confusion about what "open" means. It is an important distinction since it is rather easy to cloud the issue by making source code available under a restrictive, proprietary license.
Obviously, you wish to push for confusing the issue.
Deride OSI all you want. Call people names like "zealot". But if you want to make comparisons, or even enter this conversation, you're going to have to accept certain conventions - even if you wish to disagree with them.
Here are the points:
BSD is the better license due to a lack of restrictions (as opposed to the GPL)
It would be unethical to sell BSD licensed code that the seller did not develop
RedHat is unethical for selling GPL'd code that they did not develop
Many have a vested interest in "free to use" software - including Microsoft.
The interesting piece here is that both the BSD and GPL licenses fully allow for others to use their work. Heck - that's what it's there for. How this becomes unethical is a curisoity. And how this meshes with Microsoft's selling of BSD and GPL software is even more curious.
There is another really interesting point here. Note that he mixes various software models under the banner "free to use"? What does that mean? Hardly the same thing as Open Source or Free Software. Of course, by "free" he means "gratis". The point is subtle but important. Ever read an EULA for Microsoft's "free to use" software? It gets interesting - especially when you hit the restrictions to how you can use that software.
This confusion quickly leads to the next point...
The author claims to not confuse the issue - and then promplty confuses the issue. I can understand a business-focused mind getting tripped over what "free" means. But the claim that "free" can only have economic meaning is silly. And then to go further and claim that this gratis conotation is really what Open Source is about is simply absurd.
Of course, there is a good reason to create this confusion. Let's go back to his earlier statement:
Remember the issue about restrictions of use? Keep in mind that within this mixed bag we have products that have restrictions and products that do not. This is the real issue.
The focus of licenses like BSD and GPL is restrictions. Not price. Something that Microsoft and its supporters like to obscure for some odd reason.
How's the shareware market doing? Heck - how about even just small proprietary software companies? Or mid to large ones for that matter?
Business is rough. Most fail. It doesn't matter if you're pushing bits, boxes, or burgers.
Maybe you should ask IBM, RedHat, etc. why they bother developing?
You might want to go back and check on what contributions SuSE and RedHat have made. It may shock you. They are, in fact, developers.
Mine doesn't. :)
True. But then - IBM's contributions to whatever open source project they work on are available to everyone. Microsoft included.
And Microsoft does sell open source (GPL'd even) software. If you dig enough (MS has burried this information), you'll find that their Services For Unix product in chock full of GNU applications. And, of course, this and several outer pieces are based on BSD code.
The point is - if you're going to make a big deal about Microsoft's actions, you better be sure your argument is on solid moral ground. Perhapse neither Microsoft nor IBM's motivations are entirely alturistic. However, IBM is clearly providing the better service. And the more friendly form of "free".
What code are they releasing? Sure - I wouldn't expect the source to the latest Windows or Office. But I would hope your examples include at least SOME substantial pieces of software.
And under what license? This is one thing that's hard to get a Microsoft Zealot's head around; access to source code does not make something open source. It's as much about what you can do with that source code as getting it.
Are you so sure that Hollywood sees fantasy as anything but? Sure - Jackson was able to fight the good fight and create this epic (in both film and production). But it's important to note that he had to fight to keep his vision intact. Jackson did a good job (critics aside). But will anybody else do as well?
Or will the previous poster's prediction hold true and we'll be inundated by more crappy fantasy?
The important thing here isn't that the LotR trilogy was fantasy. It's that it was an epic work, a good story, and a good series of films. That just happened to be a fantasy.
Or maybe they didn't think that these over-the-top fantastic things belonged in the game?
It already is.
Because occasionally the system breaks. Some entity finds itself in a position of leadership and uses anti-competitive behavior to guarantee future success. The whole point of a free market is competition. If that competition is being eliminated by the actions of one or more individuals, then it is no longer a truely free market. And that's why there are anti-trust laws. Think of it as an occasional tweak or reset to an otherwise smoothly running system.
That's easy. Software. Windows is supported by the majority of desktop software producers - in many cases, exclusively. If Joe User is comfortable with Quicken, he's not going to want anything that doesn't enable him to keep running Quicken. There is no Quicken for Linux.
Forget the user-friendly issue. I agree that it is a very valid point (and something Linux needs continued work on). However, for the most part, it is a red herring. After all, if user-friendliness was the issue, Apple would dominate. I'm not an Apple fan - haven't ever owned a single piece of Apple hardware. But they have always had the easier, "Just Works" interface. Yet they're a niche player bouncing back from the edge of oblivion.
Steve Ballmer provided endless amusement with his "monkey dance". But antics aside, he was right. It's about developers. Not for geek factor. But to produce a 3rd party product line that re-enforces Microsoft's dominance.
Could there be a Quicken for Linux? Sure. But first there has to be a suitably large enough market for it. And thus we're back to the previously mentioned catch-22.
Yes. I agree. Assuming the market is healthy enough to allow competition.
Having said that... let's look at your examples...
Adobe - by this I assume you're talking about Adobe's PDF document format and Acrobat? PDF is an interesting case. Originally, Acrobat cost. The format didn't catch on. Then Adobe gave away their reader and PDF started catching on. Furthermore, Adobe licenses the PDF specification on a royalty-free, non-exclusive basis. Now one can find a rather large collection of PDF related software for a fee or free (and Apple's OSX uses PDF extensively). Surely a success story. But does Microsoft have a competing format?
ICQ/AIM/Trillian - ICQ and AIM are both AOL with slightly different markets... both heading towards increased integration. It could be argued that these services are a loss leader for AOL. Trillian is a nice little app - but they're based off of reverse-engineering the existing chat architectures. Microsoft competes with their own MSN messenger (which
The implication here seems to be enacting a vendetta at the cost of the consumer. That's a grave mischaracterization. There are a couple things to keep in mind. First, a monopoly can sometimes offer some benefit to consumers (and in some cases it is the only way to do things - consider state-sponsored monopolies and telecommunications). However, this benefit is often short-lived once a competitive threat is removed from the market. Consumers will win in the long run if we have a healthy market open to continued competition. After all, our IT industry itself produced many examples where market leaders misunderstood or simply missed important turning points. If a market leader is able to leverage their position illegaly to eliminate competition, it is just as likely we will miss out on true innovation and growth within that market.
Am I concerned with breaking up a monopoly? Yes. That is the long-term view. However, I don't believe the short-term impact is so grave...
By the way this reads, I wonder how the heck we've managed to stumble through over a decade of personal and business computing without bundling. The simple answer to this is that even the computing novice will soon propagate their desktop with software from other sources without bundling. Assuming I'm proposing eliminating bundling entirely. Which I'm not.
I've never said Microsoft shouldn't produce additional software. Nor should it never be included. The issue is the requirement to bundle this software for the much-needed discounted licensing for Windows.
Why install 3 separate browsers? Indeed. If Dell does a marketing deal with Opera, why should they also have to include IE? If a part of HP's branding with Apple involves including pre-installed Quicktime and a link to it on the desktop, so be it. HP shouldn't be pressured to include Windows Media Player or limit their involvement with Apple and its technology.
Keep in mind that this is the exact issue involved with Microsoft and Netscape. OEMs who wished to install or favor Netscape in their desktop offerings faced losing the same licensing other, more compliant OEMs received.
And oddly enough, this same issue came to light before Netscape. This particular scuffle involved AOL and the announcement of Microsoft's plans to create a competitor: MSN. Just who gets links on the desktop? But then the Internet popped up and the industry didn't seem as interested in the issues being raised.
Incidentally, you'll note that nowhere do I state that Microsoft shouldn't offer their own supplementary apps. I don't claim that the Dells and Compaqs should not include Microsoft apps in their bundling deals. The issue is that Microsoft should not be able to force bundling on an OEM who might otherwise choose other offerings.
So what you're saying is that you want a few layers of sales / marketing between you and the dev's?
I'm not aware of one. And that's my point. Cisco dominates the network hardware market. Yet they are very carefull not to abuse this position. Keep in mind that Cisco is still an agressive competitor.
Who says we're talking about ruining a company? Anti-trust litigation is about trying to rememdy an imbalance in a market. Not destroying a company.
I know one of the themes that comes out of Slashdot is "destroy Microsoft." I don't agree with it. I believe, given a fair market and time, Microsoft will find itself tracing IBM's footsteps.
This is really an entirely unrelated subject. But yea - maybe Apple would have been a leader if they had stopped being a hardware company. Microsoft's success is more about IBM losing control of its platform design. Whether Apple could manage to pull off the same thing is in question (some might point out that they made a half-attempt at this and failed miserably).
But that wasn't the point. You said that Apple would make a suitable candidate for an out of Microsoft's strong-arm sales tactics. I'm pointing out that they are not.
I do agree that much of where Apple is today is its own doing. Apple won where IBM lost. There's a certain irony to this.
C'mon. Let's dispense with this nonesense about what Slashdot is all about. You and I both know that any vendor selling x86 desktops must offer Windows as an option. Linux would be fine for many customers - right up to the point where they try to run Quicken or the majority of games available. And that means right now Windows is needed.
Does this make these discounts a favor? Sure. But with strings attached. Not all the OEMs have been thrilled about those strings.
One final note on this. It isn't all about Windows vs. Linux. Heck - its not even about the OS. The Netscape isue was all about Windows applications (although the bigger picture involved making the OS irrelevant).
Nothing so drastic. Let Windows compete in an open market. Do away with the bundling and strings-laden contracts. I have to admit that how to ensure this happens is the Big Question. Microsoft is hardly a willing participant.
And that's the Catch-22. The applications aren't all there. Sure - there are great suitable subs for some things. But people want to run what they are used to - what they trust. You'll need the newest games (slowly happening). You'll need the trusted stand-bys (like Quicken, Quickbooks, etc). But these won't come until the market matures. Which has more to do with adoption than anything else. Which, in turn, would get a big boost if other major leaders in IT hardware (such as Dell) made desktops pre-loaded with Linux available. But they're not likely to do this if it involves losing their deals with Microsoft.
Really. Then where's all the other anti-trust lawsuits against other industry leaders? Heck - take Cisco Systems alone. Where's the suit over their dominance of networking and associated hardware?
You oversimplify. It's one thing to underbid a competitor. It's another to try to slash-and-burn a market. Or abuse one's position to force out competition. Which leads to the next point...
No, they couldn't. Apple does not dominate the desktop market. Furthermore, their market is not quite the same as Microsoft's. After all, you don't see MacOS machines from Dell.
No. Vendors need Windows. The vast majority of consumer software runs on Windows. There is some growth towards consumer software for Linux-based systems. But until that market matures, if the OEM wants to move products based on x86 hardware, they have to have Windows.
Now, of course, Microsoft never said they wouldn't sell to an OEM if they started offering products based on another OS. But you have to consider that profit margins on hardware are tight. An increase in licensing cost for Windows could be fatal.
Microsoft knows this. And this is why they threatened to axe their sweetheart deals for anybody providing a foothold for a competitor. That has everything to do with Microsoft's monopolistic business practices.
The issue that you're missing is that it doesn't have to be a "true monopoly" to run afoul of anti-trust laws. The point is not that competitors do not exist. The issue is whether one's market dominance is being used illegally to shut out a market to competitors.
You do realize that you've just described one example of anti-competitive behavior that was unearthed during the Microsoft trial, right?
You also touched on the Netscape issue. At one point, Netscape had the superior browser. However, they were soon losing revenue as Microsoft refused to play nice with any OEMs who shipped with Navigator featured on the desktop. Just one example of Microsoft's "cut off their air supply" tactics.
In continuing the reverse order of your post, you mentioned Linux ease-of-use. You further state:
Microsoft proved that user-friendliness only needs to go so far. The real issue is price and availability. After all, if usability was the big motivation, Apple would have won the desktop war years ago. But Apple wasn't riding the move of the industry from proprietary hardware to commoditized hardware. Microsoft was.
Otherwise, I'm not going to get in to a big discussion about Linux's state of user-friendliness. This is well-trodden territory. You claim its akin to using a cinder block for word processing. My own experience is different. I'll leave it at that.