Did AMD go in court and whine about Intel having monopoly back in AMD-K6 days? I don't remember such thing, if someone does, please remind me.
There is nothing illegal about being a market leader. It's all about how a company uses that position. After all, if being dominant in a market is all it took to run afoul of the law, Cisco Systems would have faced court action years ago.
As an aside, you should include earlier AMD history. Even throw in Cyrix. Maybe even mention IBM's entry in to the x86 chip market. Intel has had to deal with competition over the last decade. And while they are certainly paranoid and aggressive competitors, they have managed to compete without tripping over antitrust laws.
Sure you can have monopoly in hardware business but don't you dare to be nro 1 in software business. I checked the local law (I live in Europe and I'm not a lawyer but I took some law-classes in commercial school 1993-1995) and I found absolutely nothing against Microsoft.
I'm not familiar with European legal history. However, if you look at antitrust law history in the US you will find it involves cases outside of the software industry. There is nothing "holy" about software.
First fact: MS is not an economic monopoly. Economic monopolies are the sole provider of a good or service. This grants tremendous power. Simply having market dominance grants you much limited power. Just because a judge says their a monopoly doesn't mean that the thousands of economists who disagree are in error.
Sure - Microsoft does not meet the pure definition of an economic monopoly. But then, neither did Standard Oil. Yet both are loosely referred to as monopolies and ran afoul of antitrust laws and assorted legal action.
Economists are not lawyers. Just because Microsoft is labled as an illegal monopoly by a court does not mean that Microsoft must meet an economist's definition of the term (be they in the thousands or not).
Microsoft may not have the same amount of power as it would have if it was a true monopoly. But claiming it somehow has "limited power" completely ignores Microsoft's true impact on the industry.
Netscape - they had a decent product that they charged for. Microsoft not only made a product, but gave it away with their O/S. Rather than competing with Microsoft by releasing a better browser to compete with the bundling, or seeking more investment, they sought litigation and their product suffered.
You're missing out pieces of history. Memos about "cutting off the air supply". Threats over OS licensing and bundling deals with Netscape and OEMs. Little details like that.
Superior technology isn't good enough. It must be SIGNIFICANTLY better to require the switch (nobody buys new upgrades unless they are worth marginal benefit) and it must be MARKETED well. Show me a product that did these 2 things and failed and you'll have an argument.
Wait. NOW it has to be marketed well too? Before it just had to be "significantly better.":)
But yes... I noted marketing being one of those factors. The point that you may have missed is that business involves a lot of factors. And dealing with an abusive monopoly is a definate factor.
As for an example of a failed superior technology: betamax. Superior format. Heavily marketed by Sony. Lost out to VHS in the end. One possible reason was Sony's reluctance to license the format.
Another example is Apple in general - both the II models and Mac. Apple was the first to produce a consumer microcomputer. They were the first business microcomputer. They were the first consumer GUI environment. Yet they have come close to the brink and continue to be niche players today (an interesting parallel to Betamax is that Apple was also very closed while Microsoft rode the commoditization of PC hardware to their current market dominance).
The biggest problem in implementation is that you make life more difficult for the consumer by removing Media Player from Windows.
Your average consumer who sees having a choice in software as inconvenient will likely be buying something from the likes of Dell and using whatever Dell bundles. They'll not want for basic applications.
Neither Media Player nor IE have stalled innovation in their respective markets, and overall, consumers have benefited from their stability/standardization.
Huh. Could have sworn there was a big court case about this kind of thing a few years back. Seems some folk would disagree with that assessment. Of course - not Microsoft. Their claim was something like "freedom to innovate".
Theres nothing WRONG with Microsoft bundling in it's Media Player or Web Browser or whatever. Doing that is no different than them including Notepad.
I always wondered about the whole "we're only integrating these because our customers want it" line. After all, people want MS Word too. You don't see that integrated in to the OS. But then, Microsoft already has a defacto standard / monopoly in office automation software.
You can argue all you want that it's because they have a monopoly but you'd be conveniently ignoring facts.
This statement boggles the mind. You yourself are conveniently brushing aside a very important fact. We're dealing with the abuse of a monopoly here.
The point that Windows works well enough for a majority of people in the market is a good one. But that's just one of the issues here. It's not just about an OS - this isn't all about Windows. It's about leveraging Windows to push other technical components (and to some extent, visa-versa).
Make a significantly better product and communicate this to your target market. Do this, and you'll win. It happened with A & P Grocers (80% of the market was theirs, and they eventually went bankrupt for not responding to market trends) and it can happen with Microsoft. Don't hide behind litigation
Welcome to the real world. You'll find here that the better product doesn't always win. In fact, within the technology sector, you'll find a whole graveyard of superior technology that failed.
Here in the real world you've got to deal with business issues such as marketing, bundling, partnerships, etc. Then there's that whole monopoly thing. You remember that? The little detail you were eager to brush aside earlier?
Its hard to do anything in a market already dominated by a monopoly willing to abuse their position. That "hide behind litigation" action you mentioned is what happens when the law has to step in and attempt to rememdy the situation created by this abuse.
I like the overall theme of the post: competition. However, you're holding up the wrong end of the scale. Microsoft is no champion for competition.
So when a company gets to the point of being the market leader, they cannot offer what their lowly competition does?
If it were simply about being a market leader then there would be a heck of a lot more legal action going on in the business world. Heck - even the IT industry. Consider Cisco Systems - why haven't they seen legal action? Why aren't they faced with restrictions over what they can and can not do?
Simple. They do not abuse their position. In fact, Cisco's corporate culture sees Microsoft as an example of behavior to avoid. Which is not to say that Cisco is not 1) paranoid of competition, 2) competative and 3) directly competing in various parts of the IT market by offering (or attempting to offer) comparable products.
The article mentions that the work on the Open XML standard was complete and their website shows that this standard will be used in the 'Business Colloboration Model'....so where is the problem?
Win2K / Active Directory uses Kerberos. And Microsoft Word uses XML. Doesn't mean that any of these things don't have compatability issues built in. You have, of course, heard of the strategy "embrace and extend" - coined by Microsoft.
The site doesn't mention Windows or Windows-based systems anywhere, nor does it mention Microsoft.
I don't see IBM mentioned either, yet they seem to be clearly involved. And since when does Microsoft get involved in any piece of technology that doesn't specifically involve Windows or Windows-based systems? Anything Microsoft does is going to involve Windows due to business considerations and/or it is their core competency. You may want to note that Microsoft does have a rather long history of putting strong emphasis on business considerations.
With IBM so heavily supporting *nix based systems, I doubt MS can wriggle their way into making the standards supported only on their platform, otherwise it's not really a standard....
First - IBM does business with Microsoft. They sell hardware / solutions built around Windows. I'd like to think IBM's investment in *nix would preclude supporting such a "standard". But the fact is that IBM is not a person - it is not an organization with one mind. It is certainly conceivable that a business unit within IBM would be glad to follow such a "standard" if it meant business for their department.
As far as cross-platform standards - have you been around Microsoft shops much? In such an environment, a defacto standard supported by Microsoft is viewed as a full-on standard. None of this quibbling about what platforms or software it works with. If it's Microsoft, it's OK. This brings to mind an IT Jihad at NASA's Johnson Space Center where there was just such an attempt to "standardize".
If you've been accepting solutions from your providers without using your buying power to establish indemnification, you are putting yourself at unnecessary risk. For the many savvy IT shops (GE is rumored to be one), such negotiations are par for the course.
This seems to imply that idemnification is something out of the ordinary. After all, acording to Berlind, one should be leveraging one's buying power to get it.
So the question that I get from this is - who offers idemnification as a standard part of their license? Which OSes are "safe"? How "safe"? And were they always like that or is this something they jumped on when SCO began its campaign?
Sure. He says the claims could "absolutely" be dismissed. That is hardly a careful review of the claims at issue. Yet he goes on to ask "How much is your job worth to you?"
Now - to be fair he does note "...as a user of Linux, protecting yourself from an SCO-law suit could easily be a waste of money." But by the time he's done with the article he's advising " Basically, you have one question to ask yourself: How much peace of mind do you have now and how much more are you willing to spend for a little extra?"
The overall message is that a prudent IT manager would be finding a way to spend money on some form of legal protection. And when trying to figure out where to put that money - SCO's licensing offer seems to be fairly iron-clad and cheap, all things considered.
Which, some would point out, seems to be the whole point of SCO's actions. That - and put out the message that Linux is too dangerous for the Enterprise. Which seems to be an undertone to this whole article.
If SCO wins this case, it would essentially invalidate the GPL, making your point irrelevant.
Has SCO's legal team mentioned the legality of the GPL in court? I've heard SCO make noise outside the courtroom about it - but what they say in public and what they claim in court have been very different.
Incorrect. Your argument is a cleverly crafted fallacy spun by media companies to justify ads. In reality, YOU are the product (target demographic) being SOLD to the companies BY the media channels.
But then if there was no programming, the media companies wouldn't have the target demographic to sell. The programming is there to attact viewers and, even more specifically, attract a certain demographic. Outside of a few exceptions, people do not tune in to watch commercials. There is still a trade-off.
Personally, I think having NFS, NIS, PAM, Gnome, OpenOffice, DocBook, freedesktop.org etc. developed or supported by Sun is worth more than them being sued by SCO...
The point is not that IBM is being sued, but rather what they're bing sued over; contributions to Linux. It would appear that IBM is making some pretty decent contributions themselves. This is hardly the type of activity that I would catagorize as wrapping oneself in the flag of a cause. That phrase seems to imply a much more shallow attitude than what IBM has displayed.
A spammer does not pay to keep a web site or an email account?
The spammer is more than welcome to having their email account and web site. I'll contact them when I'm interested in hearing their "message".
By your logic, junk mail also uses your resources since you need to maintain a residence (or at least a PO Box) in order to recieve ads.
The cost of getting that mail to my mailbox is entirely paid for by the mailer. That's what that whole stamp (or equivilent) business is about. In addition, commercial mail also helps subsidize the mail system. In this case, I am not paying anything for the mail and I am getting a service. Although I do have to put forth some time to actually finding the one piece of real mail in a stack of circulars and advertisements.
Should advertisers also subsidize your television costs as well?
They do. Maybe you've heard of the system before. Its called "commercials". Granted - its sometimes hard to tell the commercial from the program. In any case, the outcome is the same. The advertiser is paying for delivery of the message and the programming you watch in between their message. To get that programming, you pay for the purchase and upkeep of a TV.
Telivision commercials use MY TV, MY Power, and MY time.
In return, the commercial helps pay for the programming you're seeing. That's the trade; your resources in trade for entertainment / information and their message.
Billboards take up space in MY visual field.
Billboards exist on private property - whether you're looking at them or not is your issue. None of your resources are taken up by their existence. Of course, some areas and communities do place restrictions (or outright ban) billboards and other signs.
Junkmail takes up space in MY mailbox, I have to use MY time to sort through it.
A fair enough point. I have to agree - the majority of my "mail" these days ends up in a bin. Although the cost of mailing items does keep this somewhat in control. Email demonstrates how insane dealing with physical mail could be if it weren't for the associated cost.
You've missed on, by the way. "Junk" FAXes. Illegal. Why? Because the recipient is paying for the message in the form of toner and paper. And the incoming message ties up their resource - that is, the phone line.
You see - its not about who makes money. Its about choice, cost, and depletion of resources.
Some spammers steal bandwidth (relays, proxies, etc), some pay for their connections. Some file shares also steal bandwidth. At least before P2P it was common for them to break into FTP sites.
I see what you're trying to say - and its a good point. But at the same time, you've missed or blurred some very important distinctions.
Sure - trafficers in various illicit and otherwise shady data hijack or otherwise abuse systems. The distinction you've missed is that spammers are ALWAYS in this category.
It doesn't matter if a spammer has paid for their link out of their operation. They all take steps to disguise their true origins to avoid various AUP against their behavior. They all generate additional traffic nobody wants. Sometimes this traffic is simply the additional email itself - sometimes it is overhead due to their attempts to hide their origin. And the cost of this unwanted traffic is always paid for by those other than themselves. I have yet to have a spammer call me up and ask to run a dedicated circuit directly to my network - free of charge.
It is worth stressing a very important point here - commercial email traffic is not in itself spam. If someone signs up for "valuable messages" of a commercial nature, then fine. That is wanted traffic. It is no different than clicking on the latest ISO for you favorite distro and starting the download. It is the unwanted and uncontrollable nature of this traffic that causes it to be labled as spam.
As an aside - this brings up the spectre of "opt-in" commercial email. Some places are very up-front about their operation. Some offer you things in return (Hotmail, Yahoo Groups, various "read email for credit" outfits, etc.). Others are rather nefarious about what their intents are. Its this shady behavior that lands wide-eyed "innocent" outfits firmly in the "spammer" category.
MS is naturally not opposed to using freely-available BSD code to achieve better interoperability with BSD/UNIX. MS Windows Services for UNIX, for example, includes a lot of modern BSD tools ported from OpenBSD. That's reasonable, of course, since it's supposed to provide a set of command-line tools familiar to UNIX systems administrators, and OpenBSD tools are known to be relatively good in terms of security.
Microsoft Sevices for Unix also includes plenty of GPL utilities too. In and unto itself, it's no big deal. After all, Microsoft follows all the license requirements. This only becomes an interesting point in light of the occasional flame/FUD about licensing, the GPL, and BSD.
The common claim about the MS TCP/IP stack from open source zealots is that MS 'stole' the Windows TCP/IP stack from BSD because it couldn't write one of its own, which is of course complete nonsense.
I completely agree here. The whole bit about "stolen" code is rather silly. And it misses the point.
The real interesting thing to note is that even with an organization that is often heralded as a bastion of proprietary software the the One True Way... open source is viewed as valuable.
While I will conceed that there is plenty of creativity in anime and even more room for it to expand, I don't feel that it will ever become quite as popular as you are describing. We, as geeks, tend to be more open about "alternative" forms of entertainment. However, Average Joe over there has a hard time overcoming his preconceptions about animated shows -- the preconception that they are for kids.
Sometime in the mid-90's I was stuck somewhere reading over an available magazine (probably some doctor's office). I found myself reading an interview with a Fox TV executive. They hit on a part about The Next Thing. The Executive's comment was that while right then "African-American culture" was hot, it would eventually fade out. The next Big Thing? Japanese culture.
Over the years, I've seen more and more Anime hitting mainstream. He might have been correct.
Where, however, is the "buzz" over cool new ideas yet unseen? Many people buzz over remakes of old ideas, but are they done any better?
...
Where's the new, cool stuff.
I'm with you on the general idea. I like to see new stuff... although I don't always catch on first time around (it took me awhile to start watching Farscape, but now I really enjoy it - axed or not). Having said that... who says everything has to be new?
Some things are ruined by the very system latching on to old chesnuts for increased profit. Others have already made their digs at Hollywood so we'll just leave it at that. However, some things improve in the retelling.
The concept of having to constantly do something new - or at least sufficiently re-dress something so it looks new enough to avoid a lawsuit - is fairly new. In the history of storytelling, there are plenty of examples where a story has survived and morphed over time. These are great epics not because of some re-discovered or carefully maintained archive. But because the story has been popular enough to be retold; slightly altering in the retelling over the ages.
Think of Beowulf (and before you hit "Reply", no... not a cluster of stories).
And oddly enough - the origional concept from Gene Roddenberry himself (apparently his wife / estate selling off old tidbits that never made it out while he was alive). The origional description I read sounded much like the fall of the Star Trek's Federation.
Re:Bill Gates, Hall of Fame Hacker? (P.S. First Po
on
Hackers Hall of Fame
·
· Score: 1
Bill founded what is now the largest software company in the world, and wether or not you agree with him, he has made a important contribution to the computing industry: Microsoft brought desktop computing to the home user.
Now, be honest. How many of us had our first computer experience with MS-DOS or Windows 3.1? Do you think that if computers still consisted on thin-client-server models based on huge VAX mainframes, that Joe and Jane Smith would be able to dial-in to AOL and connect to thousands of people around the world?
You're wrong. Bill Gates did not bring us desktop computing. Now, he did do something else. He was a major part of computing turning to commodity hardware. And that was no small step in computing history. Bill deserves some credit there. But not for the laundry list you've provided.
Others have already pointed out that Apple should get credit where you've been attributing it to Microsoft (although no mention of the Apple Lisa). However, they miss a couple important points (that happen before the Mac).
The Apple II had a major impact to microcomputing. First, it was the first real consumer "home computer". It was the first system that came complete with a keyboard in a custom, stylish plastic case. Secondly, it ran the first business killer app - VisiCalc. The advent of the spreadsheet made microcomputers a must-have for business and extended them beyond the realms of hobbiests and scientists. And it generated a market that had taken IBM by such suprise that they had to rush to market with a "personal computer" using off-the-shelf components (and thus providing another key piece to the formation of a commodity hardware market). Also keep in mind that the expanding business market also expanded the home computer market as consumers mirrored their work environment at home.
Would the Internet have blossomed into the vast information network it is today without the aid of easy-to-use software from Microsoft?
Microsoft missed the Internet boat. Consumer Internet access was gaining popularity well before Microsoft did their historical turn-on-a-dime. It was smart of Microsoft to make that change and make their systems easier to use with Internet technology. But it was something that would have happened with or without them. Not because of them.
How about Grandma who wants to set up a webcam so she can chat with her grandchildren? She doesn't want to have to sit and hack kernels for hours. She wants Plug-and-Play, baby.
Grandma should have a Mac. Back when Microsoft's supported efforts were called "plug-and-pray", Apple's offering Just Worked.
Don't get me wrong. Its a good goal. And Microsoft has improved vastly since those early days. Heck - even various Linux distros put forth a rather good effort.
But if "ease of use" was such an important factor, Microsoft would not be so dominant today.
Look, disagree all you like, but thanks to things like Windows, Office, and MSN, modern computing has been made easy and affordable to everyone, thanks to pioneers like Bill Gates.
I can understand being ignorant of history - especially if you start your own memory of computing at DOS and Win3.1x. But you'll need to get a better historical perspective if you want your commentary on "pioneers" to have any weight.
One interesting side note - MSN was a major issue when it surfaced. It was going to take on AOL. And AOL's grumblings over MSN sounded much like the whole IE issue. But then, something happened. The Internet. It transformed both AOL (who first offered Internet access as a feature, then became an ISP). And it completely changed what MSN was to be even before it was. All of this was a reaction to events rather than being a pioneer.
On a similar note, how about an industry wide boycott of all Verisign certificates. The next round of certificate-extortion goes through someone else, and uninstall their root certs too - I'd hardly call them "trusted" after pulling this junk again.
I agree with the general idea. A company who resorts to this kind of behavior is hardly someone that can be trusted. This mindset affects their DNS operations today. What other areas of their business are next?
Having said that - who is a suitable sub (it's not Thawte)?
Although some networks will allow you to be pre-infected with an empty shell virus that will automatically download and install MyDoom.III when it begins to spread.
But seriously... Why trust google? Trust the current owners? Maybe. The Google Corporation? No.
Excellent point. Trusting a corporate entity has a couple problems.
First, leadership changes. The ethical leader of today can be replaced by someone with completely different ideals tommorow. A topical example is SCO/Caldera. SCO's current legal strategy under Darl McBride had started as a product offering under Ransom Love.
A second problem is that all things within a corporate entity becomes an asset. If Google goes under, all their property and assets will be sold off (pennies on the dollar and all that). Who will buy that personal information? Doubleclick? A "direct marketer"?
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing illegal about being a market leader. It's all about how a company uses that position. After all, if being dominant in a market is all it took to run afoul of the law, Cisco Systems would have faced court action years ago.
As an aside, you should include earlier AMD history. Even throw in Cyrix. Maybe even mention IBM's entry in to the x86 chip market. Intel has had to deal with competition over the last decade. And while they are certainly paranoid and aggressive competitors, they have managed to compete without tripping over antitrust laws.
I'm not familiar with European legal history. However, if you look at antitrust law history in the US you will find it involves cases outside of the software industry. There is nothing "holy" about software.
Sure - Microsoft does not meet the pure definition of an economic monopoly. But then, neither did Standard Oil. Yet both are loosely referred to as monopolies and ran afoul of antitrust laws and assorted legal action.
Economists are not lawyers. Just because Microsoft is labled as an illegal monopoly by a court does not mean that Microsoft must meet an economist's definition of the term (be they in the thousands or not).
Microsoft may not have the same amount of power as it would have if it was a true monopoly. But claiming it somehow has "limited power" completely ignores Microsoft's true impact on the industry.
You're missing out pieces of history. Memos about "cutting off the air supply". Threats over OS licensing and bundling deals with Netscape and OEMs. Little details like that.
Wait. NOW it has to be marketed well too? Before it just had to be "significantly better."
But yes... I noted marketing being one of those factors. The point that you may have missed is that business involves a lot of factors. And dealing with an abusive monopoly is a definate factor.
As for an example of a failed superior technology: betamax. Superior format. Heavily marketed by Sony. Lost out to VHS in the end. One possible reason was Sony's reluctance to license the format.
Another example is Apple in general - both the II models and Mac. Apple was the first to produce a consumer microcomputer. They were the first business microcomputer. They were the first consumer GUI environment. Yet they have come close to the brink and continue to be niche players today (an interesting parallel to Betamax is that Apple was also very closed while Microsoft rode the commoditization of PC hardware to their current market dominance).
Your average consumer who sees having a choice in software as inconvenient will likely be buying something from the likes of Dell and using whatever Dell bundles. They'll not want for basic applications.
Huh. Could have sworn there was a big court case about this kind of thing a few years back. Seems some folk would disagree with that assessment. Of course - not Microsoft. Their claim was something like "freedom to innovate".
Odd how the word "innovate" keeps popping up.
I always wondered about the whole "we're only integrating these because our customers want it" line. After all, people want MS Word too. You don't see that integrated in to the OS. But then, Microsoft already has a defacto standard / monopoly in office automation software.
This statement boggles the mind. You yourself are conveniently brushing aside a very important fact. We're dealing with the abuse of a monopoly here.
The point that Windows works well enough for a majority of people in the market is a good one. But that's just one of the issues here. It's not just about an OS - this isn't all about Windows. It's about leveraging Windows to push other technical components (and to some extent, visa-versa).
Welcome to the real world. You'll find here that the better product doesn't always win. In fact, within the technology sector, you'll find a whole graveyard of superior technology that failed.
Here in the real world you've got to deal with business issues such as marketing, bundling, partnerships, etc. Then there's that whole monopoly thing. You remember that? The little detail you were eager to brush aside earlier?
Its hard to do anything in a market already dominated by a monopoly willing to abuse their position. That "hide behind litigation" action you mentioned is what happens when the law has to step in and attempt to rememdy the situation created by this abuse.
I like the overall theme of the post: competition. However, you're holding up the wrong end of the scale. Microsoft is no champion for competition.
When did Apple claim Quicktime was "intregal" to an OS? Now... maybe they've said something like that about the iPod and iTunes... but not Quicktime.
If it were simply about being a market leader then there would be a heck of a lot more legal action going on in the business world. Heck - even the IT industry. Consider Cisco Systems - why haven't they seen legal action? Why aren't they faced with restrictions over what they can and can not do?
Simple. They do not abuse their position. In fact, Cisco's corporate culture sees Microsoft as an example of behavior to avoid. Which is not to say that Cisco is not 1) paranoid of competition, 2) competative and 3) directly competing in various parts of the IT market by offering (or attempting to offer) comparable products.
Win2K / Active Directory uses Kerberos. And Microsoft Word uses XML. Doesn't mean that any of these things don't have compatability issues built in. You have, of course, heard of the strategy "embrace and extend" - coined by Microsoft.
I don't see IBM mentioned either, yet they seem to be clearly involved. And since when does Microsoft get involved in any piece of technology that doesn't specifically involve Windows or Windows-based systems? Anything Microsoft does is going to involve Windows due to business considerations and/or it is their core competency. You may want to note that Microsoft does have a rather long history of putting strong emphasis on business considerations.
First - IBM does business with Microsoft. They sell hardware / solutions built around Windows. I'd like to think IBM's investment in *nix would preclude supporting such a "standard". But the fact is that IBM is not a person - it is not an organization with one mind. It is certainly conceivable that a business unit within IBM would be glad to follow such a "standard" if it meant business for their department.
As far as cross-platform standards - have you been around Microsoft shops much? In such an environment, a defacto standard supported by Microsoft is viewed as a full-on standard. None of this quibbling about what platforms or software it works with. If it's Microsoft, it's OK. This brings to mind an IT Jihad at NASA's Johnson Space Center where there was just such an attempt to "standardize".
This seems to imply that idemnification is something out of the ordinary. After all, acording to Berlind, one should be leveraging one's buying power to get it.
So the question that I get from this is - who offers idemnification as a standard part of their license? Which OSes are "safe"? How "safe"? And were they always like that or is this something they jumped on when SCO began its campaign?
Sure. He says the claims could "absolutely" be dismissed. That is hardly a careful review of the claims at issue. Yet he goes on to ask "How much is your job worth to you?"
Now - to be fair he does note "...as a user of Linux, protecting yourself from an SCO-law suit could easily be a waste of money." But by the time he's done with the article he's advising " Basically, you have one question to ask yourself: How much peace of mind do you have now and how much more are you willing to spend for a little extra?"
The overall message is that a prudent IT manager would be finding a way to spend money on some form of legal protection. And when trying to figure out where to put that money - SCO's licensing offer seems to be fairly iron-clad and cheap, all things considered.
Which, some would point out, seems to be the whole point of SCO's actions. That - and put out the message that Linux is too dangerous for the Enterprise. Which seems to be an undertone to this whole article.
Has SCO's legal team mentioned the legality of the GPL in court? I've heard SCO make noise outside the courtroom about it - but what they say in public and what they claim in court have been very different.
But then if there was no programming, the media companies wouldn't have the target demographic to sell. The programming is there to attact viewers and, even more specifically, attract a certain demographic. Outside of a few exceptions, people do not tune in to watch commercials. There is still a trade-off.
The point is not that IBM is being sued, but rather what they're bing sued over; contributions to Linux. It would appear that IBM is making some pretty decent contributions themselves. This is hardly the type of activity that I would catagorize as wrapping oneself in the flag of a cause. That phrase seems to imply a much more shallow attitude than what IBM has displayed.
The spammer is more than welcome to having their email account and web site. I'll contact them when I'm interested in hearing their "message".
The cost of getting that mail to my mailbox is entirely paid for by the mailer. That's what that whole stamp (or equivilent) business is about. In addition, commercial mail also helps subsidize the mail system. In this case, I am not paying anything for the mail and I am getting a service. Although I do have to put forth some time to actually finding the one piece of real mail in a stack of circulars and advertisements.
They do. Maybe you've heard of the system before. Its called "commercials". Granted - its sometimes hard to tell the commercial from the program. In any case, the outcome is the same. The advertiser is paying for delivery of the message and the programming you watch in between their message. To get that programming, you pay for the purchase and upkeep of a TV.
In return, the commercial helps pay for the programming you're seeing. That's the trade; your resources in trade for entertainment / information and their message.
Billboards exist on private property - whether you're looking at them or not is your issue. None of your resources are taken up by their existence. Of course, some areas and communities do place restrictions (or outright ban) billboards and other signs.
A fair enough point. I have to agree - the majority of my "mail" these days ends up in a bin. Although the cost of mailing items does keep this somewhat in control. Email demonstrates how insane dealing with physical mail could be if it weren't for the associated cost.
You've missed on, by the way. "Junk" FAXes. Illegal. Why? Because the recipient is paying for the message in the form of toner and paper. And the incoming message ties up their resource - that is, the phone line.
You see - its not about who makes money. Its about choice, cost, and depletion of resources.
I see what you're trying to say - and its a good point. But at the same time, you've missed or blurred some very important distinctions.
Sure - trafficers in various illicit and otherwise shady data hijack or otherwise abuse systems. The distinction you've missed is that spammers are ALWAYS in this category.
It doesn't matter if a spammer has paid for their link out of their operation. They all take steps to disguise their true origins to avoid various AUP against their behavior. They all generate additional traffic nobody wants. Sometimes this traffic is simply the additional email itself - sometimes it is overhead due to their attempts to hide their origin. And the cost of this unwanted traffic is always paid for by those other than themselves. I have yet to have a spammer call me up and ask to run a dedicated circuit directly to my network - free of charge.
It is worth stressing a very important point here - commercial email traffic is not in itself spam. If someone signs up for "valuable messages" of a commercial nature, then fine. That is wanted traffic. It is no different than clicking on the latest ISO for you favorite distro and starting the download. It is the unwanted and uncontrollable nature of this traffic that causes it to be labled as spam.
As an aside - this brings up the spectre of "opt-in" commercial email. Some places are very up-front about their operation. Some offer you things in return (Hotmail, Yahoo Groups, various "read email for credit" outfits, etc.). Others are rather nefarious about what their intents are. Its this shady behavior that lands wide-eyed "innocent" outfits firmly in the "spammer" category.
...wait. This is one of those subliminal reverse "In Soviet Russia" jokes, isn't it?
Microsoft Sevices for Unix also includes plenty of GPL utilities too. In and unto itself, it's no big deal. After all, Microsoft follows all the license requirements. This only becomes an interesting point in light of the occasional flame/FUD about licensing, the GPL, and BSD.
I completely agree here. The whole bit about "stolen" code is rather silly. And it misses the point.
The real interesting thing to note is that even with an organization that is often heralded as a bastion of proprietary software the the One True Way... open source is viewed as valuable.
Sometime in the mid-90's I was stuck somewhere reading over an available magazine (probably some doctor's office). I found myself reading an interview with a Fox TV executive. They hit on a part about The Next Thing. The Executive's comment was that while right then "African-American culture" was hot, it would eventually fade out. The next Big Thing? Japanese culture.
Over the years, I've seen more and more Anime hitting mainstream. He might have been correct.
I'm with you on the general idea. I like to see new stuff... although I don't always catch on first time around (it took me awhile to start watching Farscape, but now I really enjoy it - axed or not). Having said that... who says everything has to be new?
Some things are ruined by the very system latching on to old chesnuts for increased profit. Others have already made their digs at Hollywood so we'll just leave it at that. However, some things improve in the retelling.
The concept of having to constantly do something new - or at least sufficiently re-dress something so it looks new enough to avoid a lawsuit - is fairly new. In the history of storytelling, there are plenty of examples where a story has survived and morphed over time. These are great epics not because of some re-discovered or carefully maintained archive. But because the story has been popular enough to be retold; slightly altering in the retelling over the ages.
Think of Beowulf (and before you hit "Reply", no... not a cluster of stories).
And oddly enough - the origional concept from Gene Roddenberry himself (apparently his wife / estate selling off old tidbits that never made it out while he was alive). The origional description I read sounded much like the fall of the Star Trek's Federation.
You're wrong. Bill Gates did not bring us desktop computing. Now, he did do something else. He was a major part of computing turning to commodity hardware. And that was no small step in computing history. Bill deserves some credit there. But not for the laundry list you've provided.
Others have already pointed out that Apple should get credit where you've been attributing it to Microsoft (although no mention of the Apple Lisa). However, they miss a couple important points (that happen before the Mac).
The Apple II had a major impact to microcomputing. First, it was the first real consumer "home computer". It was the first system that came complete with a keyboard in a custom, stylish plastic case. Secondly, it ran the first business killer app - VisiCalc. The advent of the spreadsheet made microcomputers a must-have for business and extended them beyond the realms of hobbiests and scientists. And it generated a market that had taken IBM by such suprise that they had to rush to market with a "personal computer" using off-the-shelf components (and thus providing another key piece to the formation of a commodity hardware market). Also keep in mind that the expanding business market also expanded the home computer market as consumers mirrored their work environment at home.
Microsoft missed the Internet boat. Consumer Internet access was gaining popularity well before Microsoft did their historical turn-on-a-dime. It was smart of Microsoft to make that change and make their systems easier to use with Internet technology. But it was something that would have happened with or without them. Not because of them.
Grandma should have a Mac. Back when Microsoft's supported efforts were called "plug-and-pray", Apple's offering Just Worked.
Don't get me wrong. Its a good goal. And Microsoft has improved vastly since those early days. Heck - even various Linux distros put forth a rather good effort.
But if "ease of use" was such an important factor, Microsoft would not be so dominant today.
I can understand being ignorant of history - especially if you start your own memory of computing at DOS and Win3.1x. But you'll need to get a better historical perspective if you want your commentary on "pioneers" to have any weight.
One interesting side note - MSN was a major issue when it surfaced. It was going to take on AOL. And AOL's grumblings over MSN sounded much like the whole IE issue. But then, something happened. The Internet. It transformed both AOL (who first offered Internet access as a feature, then became an ISP). And it completely changed what MSN was to be even before it was. All of this was a reaction to events rather than being a pioneer.
I agree with the general idea. A company who resorts to this kind of behavior is hardly someone that can be trusted. This mindset affects their DNS operations today. What other areas of their business are next?
Having said that - who is a suitable sub (it's not Thawte)?
Although some networks will allow you to be pre-infected with an empty shell virus that will automatically download and install MyDoom.III when it begins to spread.
Excellent point. Trusting a corporate entity has a couple problems.
First, leadership changes. The ethical leader of today can be replaced by someone with completely different ideals tommorow. A topical example is SCO/Caldera. SCO's current legal strategy under Darl McBride had started as a product offering under Ransom Love.
A second problem is that all things within a corporate entity becomes an asset. If Google goes under, all their property and assets will be sold off (pennies on the dollar and all that). Who will buy that personal information? Doubleclick? A "direct marketer"?