But/.ers are responsible for the decision they do make.
And, buying proprietary Microsoft technology is looking pretty dumb right about now.
Unix did take hold because a second and third source was available to corporate accounts to avoid a proprietary tie it. That same concept will benefit both Linux and truly open standards such as XML (the kind that permits other applications to read the data).
XML is of little value if it is just another proprietary structure.
In other words, if other applications can not read and utilize XML files, the form the data is in will not matter much.
I remember the day before HP even offered a Unix version.
And, today it is just about the only server OS they offer. MPE may still be sold due to customer demand. But, they may no longer offer an HP proprietary OS.
And, just why did Unix take over that market?
It was simply because corporate accounts wanted an OS that was significantly less proprietary than the house brand.
You sound like you are laughing at charging customers a higher price for Microsoft products.
Go ahead and laugh.
Customers are not.
China is not. Peru is not. Japan is not. Germany is not. India is not.
Just who do you think is laughing at paying more for less from Microsoft during this tough times? Do you really think IT managers are idiots?
Some are.
And, if they blindly buy the Microsoft brand they will continue to be charged more and more as Microsoft raises prices further to cover for lost volumes.
A 10% reduction in price is the same as loosing 10% of your sales. And, Microsoft has attempted to compete on price with the educational Office deal. That is fine but they are still way over priced and it still cuts into their revenue.
When you already sell to a large percentage of the potential customers, dropping the price is not going to result in an increase in revenue. It lowers it.
Raising the price on monopoly customers does result in increased revenue as we have seen. Some customers know they have no choice at all but to pay the higher price. They know they are being squeezed.
But, that builds resentment and ruins your good will.
But, then Microsoft no longer has any good will left. It has all but been removed by illegal activity.
Using XML does not make it a standard that can be used.
Microsoft may lie about using XML and claiming to be using a standard. But, without any ability of other applications to read the data corporate accounts will stop buying inferior and incompatable software.
Just remember Unix beat out the proprietary systems because customers were not tied to a particular proprietary OS.
Unix was not even better than MPE, AS/400 or the stuff from DEC. But, the corporate customer demanded Unix based products.
And, the reason was simply to afford an easy way to switch vendors.
That same concept can and most likely will apply to XML. And, it will not be defeated by using XML which is not usable by others. A proprietary XML is of no value.
Microsoft shareholders would take notice if Microsoft were required to pay between $10 and $15 billion to AOL for precluding them from the browser market.
You think not?
Browser sold from Netscape and Microsoft for $35 a copy just before Microsoft illegally bundle IE so that everyone who used a Microsoft product was also forced to buy and use IE.
And, how many copies are out there since the first 95?
400,000,000 or so at $35 a pop?
That is 3-5 billion right there. Netscape was in the drivers seat just before the illegal acts began. And, at the same time Microsoft itself suggested they would not succeed without leveraging windows by bundling IE with it.
Of course, the idiots lie about it now. But, Gates even used the "B" word himself in threatening others in the industry.
Microsoft is just a bunch of liars.
If you believe them (and you can not) they do not know the difference between commingled code and an icon.
Sure Unix is not open source as we have come to know it.
But, the various Unix versions from HP, DEC, IBM, Unisys and others pretty much took over the true proprietary systems since the 70's primarily because customers were not tied to proprietary technology.
That same factor now disfavor Microsoft and all its effort to force consumers to remain tied to the highly overpriced and proprietary OS technology.
Just like Unix took over the proprietary OSs on large systems, XML will eliminate proprietary file formats.
Why?
Because the major corporate customers know that proprietary products screw consumers in the long and possibly short run.
If anyone is still in the dark on how a proprietary single source for technology can screw your company, just look at the price increases, license changes and other efforts by Microsoft to screw its own customer base during tough times.
You might expect Microsoft to raise prices and tighten up terms during good times. But, the idiots running Microsoft are so dumb and stupid (that means Gates and Ballmer) that they do so during difficult times.
It is proof positive to avoid doing business with Microsoft Corporation.
Any business.
After all they are looking for more partners to screw.
Do not blame me for the decisions made by Microsoft Corporation. Blame Gates and Ballmer.
Outing a white paper not intended for public publication could be a trade secret violation.
But, I doubt that Microsoft will do anything but sweep this under the rug as quickly and efficiently as possible. Suing someone or making a big stink about it will only increase its dissemination.
There is no real reason to break compatability over time.
You can argue that bad crap aught to be tossed. But that decision should and could be left up to the individual consumer anyway.
Why design Office XP so that it requires Windows XP? That is not inherit in application design. It is simply an effort by Microsoft to put some capability in the OS rather than the application so as to force the upgrade of both.
Of course that just adds to the high cost of doing business with Microsoft (Microsnort).
Smart money avoids all of the Microsoft brands. Why? Because in the end you will be screwed by them. Your products will be inferior. Your prices will be increased. And, your choice severly restricted.
Linux on the otherhand will begin to offer some really significant advangages.
1. illegal acts are not going to preclude superior technology from the marketplace 2. backward capatability will not be eliminated prematurely just to favor the sales of other technology 3. second and third sourcing will continue to give all customers the ability to control their own destiny, cost structures and the implementation of technology on a time frame best for them 4. highly innovative products can surface without being precluded illegally from the market (wake up you idiots that think that following the elephant through the forest is the only way to go... you will step in the manure and the beast will turn on you and illegally terminate your life) 5. various vendors will be able to freely package together distributions for particular target markets eliminating the need to be screwed by the vendor simply because they want to dominate a market for a product you do not even need (forcing everyone to buy the inferior Microsoft Media player is just an example)
Are there a few more?
You bet.
And, direct on point with the white paper is the possibility that under Linux, if a GUI approach to system management actually is the better idea then that technology can surface and become dominant on its own time rather than be grammed down the throat of users like Microsoft has done.
Is there something wrong with a GUI? Maybe with your "GUI". But, maybe not with the technology that someone else may be able to put together. And, with Linux that is likely to occur. Who will do it does not matter. What is important is that it can be done and it will be done if possible.
Single vendor solutions are just that. A single solution. And if the industry has learned anything over the number of years in play, it is that no one can predetermine where the great ideas are going to come from.
Gates is an idiot for thinking that technology can be suppressed indefinately by illegal means. It simply can not. And, he is an idiot for thinking that consumers can be forced to eat the crap they decide upon. The white paper illustrates how stupid that is.
Even eating your own dog food is not free. Microsoft itself has proven that.
And, today when we see the benefit of not using.Net because it is designed to require the use of inferior Microsoft technology we still see those who think (or fail to think) that using Microsoft has merit.
If you will reflect back, Unix came into the market based upon the benefits of not being tied to a single vendor. It has not wiped out the proprietary solutions on larger systems but it sure has reduced their value.
Today,.Net and the Microsoft OS itself both suffer from being single source products. That simply means that if you choose them your prices will go up. Microsoft has proven itself to be the kind of company that will raise prices even in tough economic times simply because it could care less about any customer.
Smart money avoids the Microsoft brand.
The company is run by idiots and liars.
Can you believe those idiots actually told the judge they think that icon removal corrects illegal acts related to commingling code? And, these idiots claim to be computer aware? They are just liars. (The subject white paper is a rare exception.)
The illegal bundling issue is center stage in the AOL law suit.
AOL is also suing for all financial damages caused by the illegal act. And, they are suing for punitive damages as well.
The tying issue was "remanded" back to the trial court for futher litigation not "toss out" as was falsely claimed above. There is a very big difference.
By remanding the issue, it remains undecided.
The DOJ and the States (as well as Microsoft) decided not to further litigate the illegal tying of browsers to monopoly operating systems but AOL has taken up the issue in spades.
The tying remains illegal as does the commingling of code. And, no doubt when the jury and judge decide the AOL case, the ongoing illegal acts of Microsoft will be front and center. And, those acts include commingling found to be illegal and now past appeal but not stopped by the meaningless consent decree.
RedHat (and others) can package as they wish simply because they do not have a monopoly product that they use for the illegal bundling.
Bundling itself is not illegal. Bundling by a monopolist using monopoly products is illegal.
You would think that over the last 5-7 years a few/. readers would have learned that by now. But, they listent to the idiots from Microsoft who falsely represent the laws in order to fools others into thinking they are not in violation.
I guess some do not know the difference between commingled code and an icon. Clearly the idiots from Microsoft want consumers to think they are that ignorant. And, ignorance is the correct term.
Truly ignorant people may not know that icons have nothing to do with commingled source and binary code. But it guess even/. has a few ignorant readers as well.
Before you just assume one Linux distro or another will not make past the year you have to first look at the marketplace developing.
For Linux desktop distributors the market can grow 50-100 times slowly eating away at the share currently consumed by Microsoft. Can Microsoft grow by 100 times in one year? Absolutely not. Microsoft's growth is extremely limited. And, as the Linux desktop market begins to open up, Microsoft's share may reduce significantly. How much?
Well. It is not really a zero sum game as some would suggest. As the price for software drops (thanks to Linux) the market can actually expand. But that expansion is only available to the low cost distros not the high priced monopoly products. Must be why Microsoft looks to other markets for growth.
The Linux desktop distros have a wide open field. They do have to compete with each other as far as packaging goes. (And, services, support and price.) And, they compete with the over priced Microsoft products. But, on price they will always beat out Microsoft by substantial margins.
And, there are other reasons for just not buying proprietary products. See the article today in regard to India. That kind fellow just told Gates point blank that they will not deal with monopolists selling proprietary products. That sale is lost for good.
There is no reason for a single Linux distro anymore than a need for one of the many to go away.
Diversity is the key advantage that Linux has to offer over the Microsoft idiots.
Why?
Because everyone does not have the same needs.
Just look at the diversity of Linux distros now.
Xandros (including CrossOverOffice and clone of Windows Explorer, Openoffice).
SUSE desktop (to include crossOverOffice but not a clone of Windows Explorer).
Lindows (neither one of the above but a nice click & run package to simplify downloading and installing software- plus StarOffice).
Mandrake (nice distro but hard to network with windows and no CrossOverOffice).
RedHat (not really a viable desktop option at this point).
The point being that a good Linux desktop can include all of the above if that is what you want. But, when it comes to packaging systems you simply can not bundled it all without raising the price to everyone. Lindows includes StarOffice but not CrossOverOffice. Xandros includes CrossOver but not StarOffice. Puts OpenOffice in instead. That may mean they cost about the same but are packaged differently.
And, of course you can always add all that stuff you want on any distro.
The Microsoft approach is to bundle everything and make it cost prohibitive to all but those forced to use Microsoft technology for other reasons.
But, notwithstanding the above that does not mean that one of those distros will go away anytime soon. They do target different market segments. And, as long as their targeting is valid, they will survive. They will survive to serve those markets and be around to focus upon others later.
Just look at what SUN is doing. You may not like SUN at all. Who cares? But, SUN is targeting their Linux systems to a particular market. Guess what? If you are a individual, the chances are high you will not be interested in a SUN Linux box. If you are a corporation needing 10,000 + boxes to do this or that, you may very well be interested. And, if you are not going to network with Microsoft crap, you do not need the nifty clone of Windows Explorer that comes with Xandros. If you do network with Windows you might very much appreciate it and avoid Mandrake, SuSE, Lindows and others.
Linux is not a singular product as Microsoft wants all idiots to think they need. Consumers are different. They have different needs. Their needs include different or alternative licenses as well.
Read the StarOffice license for a fresh idea. 5 installs for you. Read the Lindows License. Install it all over the machines in your family. That makes it much more economical than the "everyone pays top dollar" from the monopolist.
So distributions will differ. And, licensing will differ. And, many of those differences are put in place because of the target market they are after. It is just like the auto industry. 80% of all of the car models available are not appropriate for you, right? But, at least one is.
Microsoft will not compete with that because they loose the benefit of illegal bundling and illegal marketing. They hate choice on the part of consumers and spend their entire day trying to figure out how to screw all consumers into buying only and all of the Microsoft products.
You do not need CrossOverOffice? Fine, buy a distro without it and save some money.
You do not need to network with Windows? Fine, buy a distro that does not easily do that. You can save and not know the difference.
Microsoft is just stupid enough to think they will cram a home PC version and an office PC version down the throats of all consumers. But, that only means that everyone pays too high a price.
Having other products on the market does not mean you can buy them instead.
If you need a particular application and that application is available only on the Microsoft crap, then you are forced to buy the Microsoft crap.
Simple minded people may claim they think that all consumers have a free will to buy anything they want. But, it is not true with computer software. YOU must in fact buy whatever the pre-requisites are.
And, as long as XP costs less than replacing all of the applications a user needs, upgrading them and incuring the expense of re-training and converting Microsoft can continue to charge extremely high prices for inferior products. And, they are doing so now.
They forced you to buy XP, right?
And, before you claim they did not, list all your applications you had or now have and detail how much it would cost you to switch to the MAC or Linux. Not just the cost of the PC and OS. But, all your applications. Can you get your games on Linux? Can you run the games you now have? Or, do you have to buy all new versions?
It is pure deceit to suggest that any customer can avoid paying the exorbitant price for XP. For many that is the lessor of two expenses.
And, it is deceitful to suggest that it is okay to screw all consumers with a high priced XP by falsely claiming they had a free choice.
Maybe they had a choice and maybe they did not. But, you insult all consumers buy suggesting that did have a choice when in fact they may not have. Or, the other choice was very expensive indeed.
If XP costs $2000, would you switch to Linux? If you say "yes", then detail exactly which applications you plan to move over to your new platform. Detail exactly how much that move will cost. If it would cost you less than $2000 and XP did cost that much, then you would move I expect. But, if training and expenses to switch cost more than $2000, you would pay Microsoft $2000 for a $25 product.
And, that is why it is deceitful to suggest that people buy XP because it is worth it. XP is worth $25 and no more. But, millions are forced to buy much higher prices for XP simply because of the fact that many vendors are forced to only offer the Microsort crap, some customers can only find the applications they need for the XP and not the less expensive platforms or it would simply cost to much to buy new software for an alternate system.
It is not what XP is worth. And, it is not what XP should cost if competition existed. But, rather it is the fact that a very large percentage of customers know they have no choice.
And, that means they are all more intelligent than yourself since you claimed not to know that.
Having the cell phone communicate with the computer is not the problem.
Tying the cell phone to the Microsoft brand is the problem. It is the use of one monopoly product to force the use of another branded product that makes it illegal.
Microsoft is more than welcome to communicate with cell phones. But, it is illegal to do so only with Microsoft cell phones.
Other SW can do likewise. But, they do not have monopoly systems forcing the use of other products. That is what makes one act illegal and the other not.
The browser market is a billion dollar plus market. And, Netscape had the dominant position in that market. Microsoft clearly violated antitrust law to preclude Netscape from that business. And, they illegally used their monopoly to do so.
Netscape may have a zero product today. But, that is the direct result of illegal activity and not the natural result of fair and open competition.
If AOL is successful in their law suit, Microsoft will pay to AOL as much as $10-$15 billion dollars for their illegal acts. And, Microsoft will be enjoined from bundling applications with the OS.
As for who puts what into their products, the company selling the product does not have that right at all. Tying of products is illegal. Commingling of products is also illegal. And, Microsoft illegal acts in that regard continue to this day.
So you may want Microsoft to be free to violate the law as they may want. But, they are not. They must comply with all of the laws in all markets in which they wish to do business. Otherwise, they will be prevented from doing business at all.
So, if XP Home did cost $2000 you would switch, right?
Or, have you forgotten the reason why you have to buy from Microsoft?
DELL was stopped from selling Linux to you.
Your old apps may not run on Linux or the MAC.
You are not going to replace all your apps simply because you need another PC, right?
XP Home or XP Pro is no valuable than a free copy of RedHat until you look at the applications you have or think you need to run.
RedHat is superior and lower in price.
So, if you are buying from Microsoft it is because you did not have the choice to avoid it.
If all you need is OpenOffice or StarOffice and an OS, then fine. Then you can argue that consumer pay $200 more for the Microsoft crap because it is worth it.
But, if they can not run their stuff unless they pay the high monopoly price then that argument is bogus. You are left with suggesting that paying too high a price for the OS is less than a fair price plus the cost of buying all the apps you need. Assuming you can get them for Linux, right?
If you can not get the apps at the same price or at all on Linux, then Microsoft is not competing against Linux nor can any consumer conclude it is worth the extra price. The OS is required. That is all.
You simply can not excuse illegal acts by declaring other acts are not illegal.
Profits are not illegal. But, seeking profits does not excuse illegal means to maximize profits.
It is the same with monopolies. They are not illegal either. But, you can engage in illegal acts to gain them or maintain them. And, Microsoft acts illegally on both of those counts.
The result is the enormous profits.
The result is the lack of competition.
The result is Netscape being removed from the market (but for going open source and being bought by AOL).
The result is RealNetworks having great technology but finding that all consumers are screwed by being first forced to buy the Microsoft brand of media player.
And, by the way, bundling the media player and browser does keep the price of Microsoft system high.
If XP Home costs $200 suggested. You can easily assume that consumers pay $65 for IE and $135 for the base OS. Or the reverse if you want. But, they are screwed because they always have to buy both.
Bundling keeps the price high AND precludes competition.
And, that is why the DOJ is so stupid for doing as Microsoft asks rather than acting to benefit consumers or the software industry. It is pure stupidity to assume one company is the industry. It is not.
And, no consumer is ever benefitted by being forced to buy any product what so ever no matter what it is or how bad they need it.
Is anyone so stupid to suggest that all individuals should be forced to buy a particular branded cure for cancer just because they have cancer? Or, do the idiots only ID themselves when they discuss the Microsoft brand?
What about the FORD car? Do idiots ID themselves suggesting that all car buyers should be required to purchase a FORD if they want a Chevy? You hear that stupid arguement too. Some even argue that it is okay to be forced to buy a FORD if you can buy a Chevy afterwards. Of course if you need another car next year you have to buy the FORD first again. But, those idiots were lying the first time around. They do not believe it either.
Monopolies bear directly on the price charged and collected.
But, it is not just the fact that alternatives are not available. You can buy several Linux distros. You can even download them for free.
But, if you have invested thousands in applications that only run on Microsoft crap you will still pay $200-$300 to avoid buying new versions of all those apps. And, that assumes you can get those apps on other platforms.
The monopoly price is forced upon consumers by Microsoft because consumers can not pick other choices. For many the alternates are simply not affordable.
Staroffice and OpenOffice are cheap. But, if you do depend upon Microsoft Office you are out of luck thinking Linux. At least until CrossOverOffice runs a few more apps. You can run some of those old apps on Xandros (and other distros with CrossOver and other tech). But, you may not be able to run your full selection.
Or, maybe you can and have switched already?
It is a lot nicer across the street. Lower prices. Higher quality. And, you do not have to buy from crooks using illegal means to keep the price high and alternatives away from consumers.
The competitive price for an OS is significantly less than what Microsoft charges. The same is true for office software.
Most interesting however is the impact this public release is going to have on the consumer class action suits that have sued Microsoft for overcharging. Of course it is true. But, now the details from Microsoft are public information.
And, at least some stockholders are not going to approve the wasting of millions on loosing ventures. Other corporations drop money loosing deals. And, Microsoft has a few it should drop, right? Or, maybe Microsoft will just increase its illegal activity in their effort to make these bad deals profitable? They clearly did that with IE. They even said it was going to be required.
Maybe Microsoft will not look so rich if it has to pay AOL 10-12 billion or so in damages? A billion or so to SUN and BE might also perk up the stockholders not hell bent on using illegal means to earn revenue.
Name another application that just about everyone has to have a copy of and causes individuals to buy a computer when otherwise they would not.
That is what defines a major killer application.
And, only idiots try to fool others suggesting it is an OS function.
If you really do not know what the difference is between an OS and an application you are beyond help. Not knowing the difference would be bad enough. Lying about it so that you can defend illegal acts by a corporation is just sad.
Commingling code is an illegal act that continues to this day despite being declared illegal past all further appeals.
But, your point was about "crimes".
Microsoft is not being charged with having violated any crimes. Antitrust violations are not "crimes".
Secondly, no company has ever been prosecuted for entering any business unless the business itself is illegal (such as selling drugs).
Microsoft has been convicted of engaging in any number of acts that do violate the federal and state antitrust laws. And, many more law suits are pending regarding a number of as yet unproven illegal acts. Those include attempted monopolization of the browser market and product tying.
Microsoft may have not yet violated the antitrust laws in regard to cell phones but they clearly and absolutely have in regard to browsers, media players, instant messaging and a number of other products including window managers (yes, they paid Caldera money to get out of that case), disc compression (yes, they paid STac a pile of money for that illegal act) and others.
The only sad part is that not all of Microsoft's "proven illegal acts" have ceased yet.
YOU are still forced to buy a commingled browser. And, that is still true despite the final appellate decision declaring that act a violation of federal law.
So, after the illegal acts stop you can then argue that charges should not be brought against Microsoft until they actually engage in illegal acts. But, the truth of the matter is that no court will find anyone guilty unless they have actually violated the law.
But, if they do engage in illegal acts they absolutely should be sued. And, the illegal acts should cease. Sometimes they do not. And, in those cases additional law suits have to be filed. And, they will be.
For years Netscape did not file its own private antitrust law suit hoping that the DOJ would enforce the law for the benefit of consumers and the industry. But, we now know they failed to do so. Oh, they won the law suit then simply took instructions from the company engaged in the illegal acts and encourage futher violations of those same laws.
The result is that AOL, SUN, Burst and BE had to file their own law suits anyway. And, thanks to AOL, Netscape is still around to sue and collect damages caused to them. By the way, those damages could exceed 10 billion or so.
Actually, 400,000,000 million times $35 is $14 billion dollars. And, arguably Netscape could have earned that revenue over the last 6 years. Triple that to $42 billion as per antitrust law and even Gates will cry uncle.
A $42 billion dollar judgment is not out of the question for the AOL law suit.
In fact, AOL has asked for punitive damages as well. So, the jury can decide how much money Microsoft has to pay in order to get them to comply with the antitrust law and allow customers to decide which applications they buy and use.
You may claim you use something other than IE. But, if you bought from Ms over the last 6 years, you paid cash money for IE without any choice on your part. It was in fact a forced sale to YOU. No customer had a choice. If you bought from MS you were forced to buy IE too.
What the computer software industry needs very badly is fair and open markets.
ONLY fair and open markets will bring vibrant competition.
And, that has been effectively removed from many markets as a direct result of illegal Microsoft Corporation activity.
You want to develop a better browser? Only if you do not want to be paid.
You want to develop a better media player? Only if you do not want to be paid.
You want to develop a better messaging system? Only if you do not want to be paid.
Right now there a many key markets that everyone who reads/. is precluded from participation. Only if you are willing to donate your time without compensation can you participate.
And, why is that?
It is the direct result of illegal Microsoft activity.
Developing a good product is not illegal. Forcing 400,000,000 people to buy it is.
Only idiots think applications are operating systems because that would force the sale. And, only idiots think that a branded product (assuming it is even wanted or needed by consumers) should be forced upon any of them.
Salesman try to convince customers to buy their brand.
Idiots lie like hell and demand that consumers be forced to buy it. And, if you bought any OS from Microsoft in the last 6 years or so, you were in fact forced to buy a number of key applications. And, you paid cash money for them. That is a fact.
And, because of that (if you are a developer) you have been illegally precluded from those markets. Even the idiots at the DOJ know that is true. They wanted to preclude you.
Slashdot Mirror
Not news.
/.ers are responsible for the decision they do make.
They never were.
But
And, buying proprietary Microsoft technology is looking pretty dumb right about now.
Unix did take hold because a second and third source was available to corporate accounts to avoid a proprietary tie it. That same concept will benefit both Linux and truly open standards such as XML (the kind that permits other applications to read the data).
XML is of little value if it is just another proprietary structure.
In other words, if other applications can not read and utilize XML files, the form the data is in will not matter much.
Read your history.
I remember the day before HP even offered a Unix version.
And, today it is just about the only server OS they offer. MPE may still be sold due to customer demand. But, they may no longer offer an HP proprietary OS.
And, just why did Unix take over that market?
It was simply because corporate accounts wanted an OS that was significantly less proprietary than the house brand.
You sound like you are laughing at charging customers a higher price for Microsoft products.
Go ahead and laugh.
Customers are not.
China is not. Peru is not. Japan is not. Germany is not. India is not.
Just who do you think is laughing at paying more for less from Microsoft during this tough times? Do you really think IT managers are idiots?
Some are.
And, if they blindly buy the Microsoft brand they will continue to be charged more and more as Microsoft raises prices further to cover for lost volumes.
A 10% reduction in price is the same as loosing 10% of your sales. And, Microsoft has attempted to compete on price with the educational Office deal. That is fine but they are still way over priced and it still cuts into their revenue.
When you already sell to a large percentage of the potential customers, dropping the price is not going to result in an increase in revenue. It lowers it.
Raising the price on monopoly customers does result in increased revenue as we have seen. Some customers know they have no choice at all but to pay the higher price. They know they are being squeezed.
But, that builds resentment and ruins your good will.
But, then Microsoft no longer has any good will left. It has all but been removed by illegal activity.
Using XML does not make it a standard that can be used.
Microsoft may lie about using XML and claiming to be using a standard. But, without any ability of other applications to read the data corporate accounts will stop buying inferior and incompatable software.
Just remember Unix beat out the proprietary systems because customers were not tied to a particular proprietary OS.
Unix was not even better than MPE, AS/400 or the stuff from DEC. But, the corporate customer demanded Unix based products.
And, the reason was simply to afford an easy way to switch vendors.
That same concept can and most likely will apply to XML. And, it will not be defeated by using XML which is not usable by others. A proprietary XML is of no value.
Microsoft shareholders would take notice if Microsoft were required to pay between $10 and $15 billion to AOL for precluding them from the browser market.
You think not?
Browser sold from Netscape and Microsoft for $35 a copy just before Microsoft illegally bundle IE so that everyone who used a Microsoft product was also forced to buy and use IE.
And, how many copies are out there since the first 95?
400,000,000 or so at $35 a pop?
That is 3-5 billion right there. Netscape was in the drivers seat just before the illegal acts began. And, at the same time Microsoft itself suggested they would not succeed without leveraging windows by bundling IE with it.
Of course, the idiots lie about it now. But, Gates even used the "B" word himself in threatening others in the industry.
Microsoft is just a bunch of liars.
If you believe them (and you can not) they do not know the difference between commingled code and an icon.
Now, how stupid can you be?
Sure Unix is not open source as we have come to know it.
But, the various Unix versions from HP, DEC, IBM, Unisys and others pretty much took over the true proprietary systems since the 70's primarily because customers were not tied to proprietary technology.
That same factor now disfavor Microsoft and all its effort to force consumers to remain tied to the highly overpriced and proprietary OS technology.
Just like Unix took over the proprietary OSs on large systems, XML will eliminate proprietary file formats.
Why?
Because the major corporate customers know that proprietary products screw consumers in the long and possibly short run.
If anyone is still in the dark on how a proprietary single source for technology can screw your company, just look at the price increases, license changes and other efforts by Microsoft to screw its own customer base during tough times.
You might expect Microsoft to raise prices and tighten up terms during good times. But, the idiots running Microsoft are so dumb and stupid (that means Gates and Ballmer) that they do so during difficult times.
It is proof positive to avoid doing business with Microsoft Corporation.
Any business.
After all they are looking for more partners to screw.
Do not blame me for the decisions made by Microsoft Corporation. Blame Gates and Ballmer.
It that is true, then the release was just not intended.
Too bad.
Once the "cat is out of the bag", the cat is out of the bag.
Outing a white paper not intended for public publication could be a trade secret violation.
But, I doubt that Microsoft will do anything but sweep this under the rug as quickly and efficiently as possible. Suing someone or making a big stink about it will only increase its dissemination.
There is no real reason to break compatability over time.
... you will step in the manure and the beast will turn on you and illegally terminate your life)
You can argue that bad crap aught to be tossed. But that decision should and could be left up to the individual consumer anyway.
Why design Office XP so that it requires Windows XP? That is not inherit in application design. It is simply an effort by Microsoft to put some capability in the OS rather than the application so as to force the upgrade of both.
Of course that just adds to the high cost of doing business with Microsoft (Microsnort).
Smart money avoids all of the Microsoft brands. Why? Because in the end you will be screwed by them. Your products will be inferior. Your prices will be increased. And, your choice severly restricted.
Linux on the otherhand will begin to offer some really significant advangages.
1. illegal acts are not going to preclude superior technology from the marketplace
2. backward capatability will not be eliminated prematurely just to favor the sales of other technology
3. second and third sourcing will continue to give all customers the ability to control their own destiny, cost structures and the implementation of technology on a time frame best for them
4. highly innovative products can surface without being precluded illegally from the market (wake up you idiots that think that following the elephant through the forest is the only way to go
5. various vendors will be able to freely package together distributions for particular target markets eliminating the need to be screwed by the vendor simply because they want to dominate a market for a product you do not even need (forcing everyone to buy the inferior Microsoft Media player is just an example)
Are there a few more?
You bet.
And, direct on point with the white paper is the possibility that under Linux, if a GUI approach to system management actually is the better idea then that technology can surface and become dominant on its own time rather than be grammed down the throat of users like Microsoft has done.
Is there something wrong with a GUI? Maybe with your "GUI". But, maybe not with the technology that someone else may be able to put together. And, with Linux that is likely to occur. Who will do it does not matter. What is important is that it can be done and it will be done if possible.
Single vendor solutions are just that. A single solution. And if the industry has learned anything over the number of years in play, it is that no one can predetermine where the great ideas are going to come from.
Gates is an idiot for thinking that technology can be suppressed indefinately by illegal means. It simply can not. And, he is an idiot for thinking that consumers can be forced to eat the crap they decide upon. The white paper illustrates how stupid that is.
Even eating your own dog food is not free. Microsoft itself has proven that.
.Net because it is designed to require the use of inferior Microsoft technology we still see those who think (or fail to think) that using Microsoft has merit.
.Net and the Microsoft OS itself both suffer from being single source products. That simply means that if you choose them your prices will go up. Microsoft has proven itself to be the kind of company that will raise prices even in tough economic times simply because it could care less about any customer.
And, today when we see the benefit of not using
If you will reflect back, Unix came into the market based upon the benefits of not being tied to a single vendor. It has not wiped out the proprietary solutions on larger systems but it sure has reduced their value.
Today,
Smart money avoids the Microsoft brand.
The company is run by idiots and liars.
Can you believe those idiots actually told the judge they think that icon removal corrects illegal acts related to commingling code? And, these idiots claim to be computer aware? They are just liars. (The subject white paper is a rare exception.)
The illegal bundling issue is center stage in the AOL law suit.
/. readers would have learned that by now. But, they listent to the idiots from Microsoft who falsely represent the laws in order to fools others into thinking they are not in violation.
/. has a few ignorant readers as well.
AOL is also suing for all financial damages caused by the illegal act. And, they are suing for punitive damages as well.
The tying issue was "remanded" back to the trial court for futher litigation not "toss out" as was falsely claimed above. There is a very big difference.
By remanding the issue, it remains undecided.
The DOJ and the States (as well as Microsoft) decided not to further litigate the illegal tying of browsers to monopoly operating systems but AOL has taken up the issue in spades.
The tying remains illegal as does the commingling of code. And, no doubt when the jury and judge decide the AOL case, the ongoing illegal acts of Microsoft will be front and center. And, those acts include commingling found to be illegal and now past appeal but not stopped by the meaningless consent decree.
RedHat (and others) can package as they wish simply because they do not have a monopoly product that they use for the illegal bundling.
Bundling itself is not illegal. Bundling by a monopolist using monopoly products is illegal.
You would think that over the last 5-7 years a few
I guess some do not know the difference between commingled code and an icon. Clearly the idiots from Microsoft want consumers to think they are that ignorant. And, ignorance is the correct term.
Truly ignorant people may not know that icons have nothing to do with commingled source and binary code. But it guess even
Before you just assume one Linux distro or another will not make past the year you have to first look at the marketplace developing.
For Linux desktop distributors the market can grow 50-100 times slowly eating away at the share currently consumed by Microsoft. Can Microsoft grow by 100 times in one year? Absolutely not. Microsoft's growth is extremely limited. And, as the Linux desktop market begins to open up, Microsoft's share may reduce significantly. How much?
Well. It is not really a zero sum game as some would suggest. As the price for software drops (thanks to Linux) the market can actually expand. But that expansion is only available to the low cost distros not the high priced monopoly products. Must be why Microsoft looks to other markets for growth.
The Linux desktop distros have a wide open field. They do have to compete with each other as far as packaging goes. (And, services, support and price.) And, they compete with the over priced Microsoft products. But, on price they will always beat out Microsoft by substantial margins.
And, there are other reasons for just not buying proprietary products. See the article today in regard to India. That kind fellow just told Gates point blank that they will not deal with monopolists selling proprietary products. That sale is lost for good.
And, the idiots at Microsoft have earned that.
The Microsoft crap is also highly overpriced feeding upon those who must use it for reasons independant of the OS.
There is no reason for a single Linux distro anymore than a need for one of the many to go away.
Diversity is the key advantage that Linux has to offer over the Microsoft idiots.
Why?
Because everyone does not have the same needs.
Just look at the diversity of Linux distros now.
Xandros (including CrossOverOffice and clone of Windows Explorer, Openoffice).
SUSE desktop (to include crossOverOffice but not a clone of Windows Explorer).
Lindows (neither one of the above but a nice click & run package to simplify downloading and installing software- plus StarOffice).
Mandrake (nice distro but hard to network with windows and no CrossOverOffice).
RedHat (not really a viable desktop option at this point).
The point being that a good Linux desktop can include all of the above if that is what you want. But, when it comes to packaging systems you simply can not bundled it all without raising the price to everyone. Lindows includes StarOffice but not CrossOverOffice. Xandros includes CrossOver but not StarOffice. Puts OpenOffice in instead. That may mean they cost about the same but are packaged differently.
And, of course you can always add all that stuff you want on any distro.
The Microsoft approach is to bundle everything and make it cost prohibitive to all but those forced to use Microsoft technology for other reasons.
But, notwithstanding the above that does not mean that one of those distros will go away anytime soon. They do target different market segments. And, as long as their targeting is valid, they will survive. They will survive to serve those markets and be around to focus upon others later.
Just look at what SUN is doing. You may not like SUN at all. Who cares? But, SUN is targeting their Linux systems to a particular market. Guess what? If you are a individual, the chances are high you will not be interested in a SUN Linux box. If you are a corporation needing 10,000 + boxes to do this or that, you may very well be interested. And, if you are not going to network with Microsoft crap, you do not need the nifty clone of Windows Explorer that comes with Xandros. If you do network with Windows you might very much appreciate it and avoid Mandrake, SuSE, Lindows and others.
Linux is not a singular product as Microsoft wants all idiots to think they need. Consumers are different. They have different needs. Their needs include different or alternative licenses as well.
Read the StarOffice license for a fresh idea. 5 installs for you. Read the Lindows License. Install it all over the machines in your family. That makes it much more economical than the "everyone pays top dollar" from the monopolist.
So distributions will differ. And, licensing will differ. And, many of those differences are put in place because of the target market they are after. It is just like the auto industry. 80% of all of the car models available are not appropriate for you, right? But, at least one is.
Microsoft will not compete with that because they loose the benefit of illegal bundling and illegal marketing. They hate choice on the part of consumers and spend their entire day trying to figure out how to screw all consumers into buying only and all of the Microsoft products.
You do not need CrossOverOffice? Fine, buy a distro without it and save some money.
You do not need to network with Windows? Fine, buy a distro that does not easily do that. You can save and not know the difference.
Microsoft is just stupid enough to think they will cram a home PC version and an office PC version down the throats of all consumers. But, that only means that everyone pays too high a price.
Having other products on the market does not mean you can buy them instead.
If you need a particular application and that application is available only on the Microsoft crap, then you are forced to buy the Microsoft crap.
Simple minded people may claim they think that all consumers have a free will to buy anything they want. But, it is not true with computer software. YOU must in fact buy whatever the pre-requisites are.
And, as long as XP costs less than replacing all of the applications a user needs, upgrading them and incuring the expense of re-training and converting Microsoft can continue to charge extremely high prices for inferior products. And, they are doing so now.
They forced you to buy XP, right?
And, before you claim they did not, list all your applications you had or now have and detail how much it would cost you to switch to the MAC or Linux. Not just the cost of the PC and OS. But, all your applications. Can you get your games on Linux? Can you run the games you now have? Or, do you have to buy all new versions?
It is pure deceit to suggest that any customer can avoid paying the exorbitant price for XP. For many that is the lessor of two expenses.
And, it is deceitful to suggest that it is okay to screw all consumers with a high priced XP by falsely claiming they had a free choice.
Maybe they had a choice and maybe they did not. But, you insult all consumers buy suggesting that did have a choice when in fact they may not have. Or, the other choice was very expensive indeed.
If XP costs $2000, would you switch to Linux? If you say "yes", then detail exactly which applications you plan to move over to your new platform. Detail exactly how much that move will cost. If it would cost you less than $2000 and XP did cost that much, then you would move I expect. But, if training and expenses to switch cost more than $2000, you would pay Microsoft $2000 for a $25 product.
And, that is why it is deceitful to suggest that people buy XP because it is worth it. XP is worth $25 and no more. But, millions are forced to buy much higher prices for XP simply because of the fact that many vendors are forced to only offer the Microsort crap, some customers can only find the applications they need for the XP and not the less expensive platforms or it would simply cost to much to buy new software for an alternate system.
It is not what XP is worth. And, it is not what XP should cost if competition existed. But, rather it is the fact that a very large percentage of customers know they have no choice.
And, that means they are all more intelligent than yourself since you claimed not to know that.
Having the cell phone communicate with the computer is not the problem.
Tying the cell phone to the Microsoft brand is the problem. It is the use of one monopoly product to force the use of another branded product that makes it illegal.
Microsoft is more than welcome to communicate with cell phones. But, it is illegal to do so only with Microsoft cell phones.
Other SW can do likewise. But, they do not have monopoly systems forcing the use of other products. That is what makes one act illegal and the other not.
The browser market is a billion dollar plus market. And, Netscape had the dominant position in that market. Microsoft clearly violated antitrust law to preclude Netscape from that business. And, they illegally used their monopoly to do so.
Netscape may have a zero product today. But, that is the direct result of illegal activity and not the natural result of fair and open competition.
If AOL is successful in their law suit, Microsoft will pay to AOL as much as $10-$15 billion dollars for their illegal acts. And, Microsoft will be enjoined from bundling applications with the OS.
As for who puts what into their products, the company selling the product does not have that right at all. Tying of products is illegal. Commingling of products is also illegal. And, Microsoft illegal acts in that regard continue to this day.
So you may want Microsoft to be free to violate the law as they may want. But, they are not. They must comply with all of the laws in all markets in which they wish to do business. Otherwise, they will be prevented from doing business at all.
XP home is not worth $2000, right?
So, if XP Home did cost $2000 you would switch, right?
Or, have you forgotten the reason why you have to buy from Microsoft?
DELL was stopped from selling Linux to you.
Your old apps may not run on Linux or the MAC.
You are not going to replace all your apps simply because you need another PC, right?
XP Home or XP Pro is no valuable than a free copy of RedHat until you look at the applications you have or think you need to run.
RedHat is superior and lower in price.
So, if you are buying from Microsoft it is because you did not have the choice to avoid it.
If all you need is OpenOffice or StarOffice and an OS, then fine. Then you can argue that consumer pay $200 more for the Microsoft crap because it is worth it.
But, if they can not run their stuff unless they pay the high monopoly price then that argument is bogus. You are left with suggesting that paying too high a price for the OS is less than a fair price plus the cost of buying all the apps you need. Assuming you can get them for Linux, right?
If you can not get the apps at the same price or at all on Linux, then Microsoft is not competing against Linux nor can any consumer conclude it is worth the extra price. The OS is required. That is all.
You simply can not excuse illegal acts by declaring other acts are not illegal.
Profits are not illegal. But, seeking profits does not excuse illegal means to maximize profits.
It is the same with monopolies. They are not illegal either. But, you can engage in illegal acts to gain them or maintain them. And, Microsoft acts illegally on both of those counts.
The result is the enormous profits.
The result is the lack of competition.
The result is Netscape being removed from the market (but for going open source and being bought by AOL).
The result is RealNetworks having great technology but finding that all consumers are screwed by being first forced to buy the Microsoft brand of media player.
And, by the way, bundling the media player and browser does keep the price of Microsoft system high.
If XP Home costs $200 suggested. You can easily assume that consumers pay $65 for IE and $135 for the base OS. Or the reverse if you want. But, they are screwed because they always have to buy both.
Bundling keeps the price high AND precludes competition.
And, that is why the DOJ is so stupid for doing as Microsoft asks rather than acting to benefit consumers or the software industry. It is pure stupidity to assume one company is the industry. It is not.
And, no consumer is ever benefitted by being forced to buy any product what so ever no matter what it is or how bad they need it.
Is anyone so stupid to suggest that all individuals should be forced to buy a particular branded cure for cancer just because they have cancer? Or, do the idiots only ID themselves when they discuss the Microsoft brand?
What about the FORD car? Do idiots ID themselves suggesting that all car buyers should be required to purchase a FORD if they want a Chevy? You hear that stupid arguement too. Some even argue that it is okay to be forced to buy a FORD if you can buy a Chevy afterwards. Of course if you need another car next year you have to buy the FORD first again. But, those idiots were lying the first time around. They do not believe it either.
Monopolies bear directly on the price charged and collected.
But, it is not just the fact that alternatives are not available. You can buy several Linux distros. You can even download them for free.
But, if you have invested thousands in applications that only run on Microsoft crap you will still pay $200-$300 to avoid buying new versions of all those apps. And, that assumes you can get those apps on other platforms.
The monopoly price is forced upon consumers by Microsoft because consumers can not pick other choices. For many the alternates are simply not affordable.
Staroffice and OpenOffice are cheap. But, if you do depend upon Microsoft Office you are out of luck thinking Linux. At least until CrossOverOffice runs a few more apps. You can run some of those old apps on Xandros (and other distros with CrossOver and other tech). But, you may not be able to run your full selection.
Or, maybe you can and have switched already?
It is a lot nicer across the street. Lower prices. Higher quality. And, you do not have to buy from crooks using illegal means to keep the price high and alternatives away from consumers.
XP is highly overpriced.
And, this recent disclosure does illustrate that.
How or why?
Look at comparable releases.
The competitive price for an OS is significantly less than what Microsoft charges. The same is true for office software.
Most interesting however is the impact this public release is going to have on the consumer class action suits that have sued Microsoft for overcharging. Of course it is true. But, now the details from Microsoft are public information.
And, at least some stockholders are not going to approve the wasting of millions on loosing ventures. Other corporations drop money loosing deals. And, Microsoft has a few it should drop, right? Or, maybe Microsoft will just increase its illegal activity in their effort to make these bad deals profitable? They clearly did that with IE. They even said it was going to be required.
Maybe Microsoft will not look so rich if it has to pay AOL 10-12 billion or so in damages? A billion or so to SUN and BE might also perk up the stockholders not hell bent on using illegal means to earn revenue.
Name another application that just about everyone has to have a copy of and causes individuals to buy a computer when otherwise they would not.
That is what defines a major killer application.
And, only idiots try to fool others suggesting it is an OS function.
If you really do not know what the difference is between an OS and an application you are beyond help. Not knowing the difference would be bad enough. Lying about it so that you can defend illegal acts by a corporation is just sad.
Funny how those who violate the law always claim that forcing the sale of about the only killer application to come along in 9 years is a "function".
A browser is not a function of an OS. It performs absolutely no OS function at all.
Microsoft did not help themselves. They violated federal antitrust laws to force all consumers to buy IE.
It simply does not matter what Netscape did.
When Microsoft decided to force all customers to buy IE, the illegal bundling perfected the attempt to monopolize the browser marketplace.
You do not have the right to commit murder even if the victum has cancer as you falsely claim. It is still murder.
Commingling code is an illegal act that continues to this day despite being declared illegal past all further appeals.
But, your point was about "crimes".
Microsoft is not being charged with having violated any crimes. Antitrust violations are not "crimes".
Secondly, no company has ever been prosecuted for entering any business unless the business itself is illegal (such as selling drugs).
Microsoft has been convicted of engaging in any number of acts that do violate the federal and state antitrust laws. And, many more law suits are pending regarding a number of as yet unproven illegal acts. Those include attempted monopolization of the browser market and product tying.
Microsoft may have not yet violated the antitrust laws in regard to cell phones but they clearly and absolutely have in regard to browsers, media players, instant messaging and a number of other products including window managers (yes, they paid Caldera money to get out of that case), disc compression (yes, they paid STac a pile of money for that illegal act) and others.
The only sad part is that not all of Microsoft's "proven illegal acts" have ceased yet.
YOU are still forced to buy a commingled browser. And, that is still true despite the final appellate decision declaring that act a violation of federal law.
So, after the illegal acts stop you can then argue that charges should not be brought against Microsoft until they actually engage in illegal acts. But, the truth of the matter is that no court will find anyone guilty unless they have actually violated the law.
But, if they do engage in illegal acts they absolutely should be sued. And, the illegal acts should cease. Sometimes they do not. And, in those cases additional law suits have to be filed. And, they will be.
For years Netscape did not file its own private antitrust law suit hoping that the DOJ would enforce the law for the benefit of consumers and the industry. But, we now know they failed to do so. Oh, they won the law suit then simply took instructions from the company engaged in the illegal acts and encourage futher violations of those same laws.
The result is that AOL, SUN, Burst and BE had to file their own law suits anyway. And, thanks to AOL, Netscape is still around to sue and collect damages caused to them. By the way, those damages could exceed 10 billion or so.
Actually, 400,000,000 million times $35 is $14 billion dollars. And, arguably Netscape could have earned that revenue over the last 6 years. Triple that to $42 billion as per antitrust law and even Gates will cry uncle.
A $42 billion dollar judgment is not out of the question for the AOL law suit.
In fact, AOL has asked for punitive damages as well. So, the jury can decide how much money Microsoft has to pay in order to get them to comply with the antitrust law and allow customers to decide which applications they buy and use.
You may claim you use something other than IE. But, if you bought from Ms over the last 6 years, you paid cash money for IE without any choice on your part. It was in fact a forced sale to YOU. No customer had a choice. If you bought from MS you were forced to buy IE too.
What the computer software industry needs very badly is fair and open markets.
/. is precluded from participation. Only if you are willing to donate your time without compensation can you participate.
ONLY fair and open markets will bring vibrant competition.
And, that has been effectively removed from many markets as a direct result of illegal Microsoft Corporation activity.
You want to develop a better browser? Only if you do not want to be paid.
You want to develop a better media player? Only if you do not want to be paid.
You want to develop a better messaging system? Only if you do not want to be paid.
Right now there a many key markets that everyone who reads
And, why is that?
It is the direct result of illegal Microsoft activity.
Developing a good product is not illegal. Forcing 400,000,000 people to buy it is.
Only idiots think applications are operating systems because that would force the sale. And, only idiots think that a branded product (assuming it is even wanted or needed by consumers) should be forced upon any of them.
Salesman try to convince customers to buy their brand.
Idiots lie like hell and demand that consumers be forced to buy it. And, if you bought any OS from Microsoft in the last 6 years or so, you were in fact forced to buy a number of key applications. And, you paid cash money for them. That is a fact.
And, because of that (if you are a developer) you have been illegally precluded from those markets. Even the idiots at the DOJ know that is true. They wanted to preclude you.