So there are places where Internet access is available but prohibitively expensive.
You're absolutely right, the rest of the world should slow down so everyone can catch up. Sorry, this isn't an excuse. If a person chooses to live in bum-fuck nowhere, then they get to take advantage of the lack of services that are offered in those areas. If they want all of the services you get in a big city, they have to move to a big city. Otherwise, they get what they paid for.
Oh wait, I guess that falls under the "stupid" category, doesn't it?
No more so than having a passionate love for Linux or Apple. Some people like to work with what works, some like to work harder than they need to. Different strokes for different folks.
Former proprietary customer: I switched from my proprietary software for no apparent logical reason and am unhappy!
Not sure if you're being funny or dense. Since this is slashdot, I'll err on the side of dense. The original poster was making the point that for years we've been hearing the OSS community whine about how no one's using their software in any significant amount. "But, it's free! And, there's no bugs! And, it's faster! And, it's more stable! And, support is more readily available! And, since there's many eyes on it, bugs are fixed instantaneously! Not that there's any bugs, mind you! And, and...what were your needs again? Oh, yeah, we support that!" And yet, when people try it and inevitably complain about the poor quality of the code, the response is typically something along the lines of "Submit a patch" or "Submit a bug report". Worse are the "You must be using it wrong", "It works on my machine" and "It works fine, you're just a Microsoft shill!" Even better, when you point these kinds of things out to the OSS devout, they tell you that never happens and everyone's warm, loving and welcoming.
But, hey, what do I know? I've only been playing with Linux off and on since 1994...
Ok, I'm being punk'd, right? All those zero-day exploits, known vulnerabilities that go unpatched for months, ActiveX - you're are just messing with me, right? When you say security (as I concede usability, and you will never convince me on performance or reliability), you must be talking about several layers of third-party apps to buttress the built-in "protection" of Windows.
Since your Windows experience is second-hand, I'll let you in on the big secret: there's a simple security checklist the Microsoft has published for years. Follow those 20-25 simple recommendations (such as securing your file system, disable unnecessary services, use privilege separation...sound familiar??) and about 99% of those issues can't affect you. Period. My favorite example is CodeRed from a few years back. In order to be affected by that, you'd have to 1) install IPP, which no one used 2) allow your web service write access to 3) known locations on the drive that 4) contained "sample" scripts. If any one of the basic security best practices had been followed, the server wouldn't have be compromised by that attack. Who's at fault for that failing, the OS or the "admin"? Solaris was also vulnerable to CodeRed, but didn't get hit as bad. Why? 'Cause the Unix guys secure their boxes. Whenever we get a patch notice from MS, we review the impact and determine if there's a need. More often than not, even the security updates labeled "critical" get pushed back into the 6-week patch cycle and the only reason we keep that schedule is to make sure the supporties remember there's a maintenance window.:) In the two and a half years at this company, I can only think of one, maybe two, times we've pushed out a patch the day it was released.
Maybe I just fall into your category of 'older folks... still mired in "this is the way we've always done things"', but I've never heard or read of someone seriously making this argument for Windows as a server OS.
Considering how often they fall prey to these kinds of issues, perhaps you should revisit your support of their opinions?:)
I can't comment on the competency of our Win Admins as I am definitely not one myself. But I do read several trade publications and websites, and it seems the problems they constantly deal with are not uncommon.
I would disagree...to a point. They're common for magazine writers and the general slashdot crowd, however, those of us in the know know better. Is there a learning curve with Windows? Certainly, and it's much higher than Unix, but the initial slopes are exactly the same. What steps do you take to secure a Unix box? Believe it or not, they're exactly the same on a Windows box. The problem is most Unix admins choose to look solely at the GUI and say "Fah! Fisher Price!" without bothering to realize there's a lot more to it than first glance.
I have no reason to doubt what you say, and maybe it's just that my 20 years in IT have been atypical, but I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around that concept
No, they haven't. I my 20+ years, I've dealt with a fair amount of incompetence. It's been growing in recent years, though, and it's coming from both fronts. The new people coming in barely know anything about Windows beyond what they got from their certifications classes, and the older folks are still mired in "this is the way we've always done things". I like to take the middle ground and go with what works...until something better comes along, and there's always something better coming along. Right now, in terms of usability AND performance, security and reliability, Windows is far ahead in the race with Unix starting to slog quickly behind in the last three (from an end-user perspective, it never had the first). But, those only come with experience and no one wants to put the time in to do things right anymore. Shame...
I tell 'em all, young and old, the same thing: imagine you're a tech at Microsoft and you've just been called up to Bill's office. Tell me how long you'll be employed if you try to use one of those "Bleh, that's just Windows!" type lines...once they learn to remove that hammer from their toolboxes, the rest comes easy.
No, it's your incompetence that causes the high administration costs. We have 16 people to manage 15,000 Windows boxes and 137 Unix twits to manage about 800 boxes. Who's got the higher cost of ownership again?
All fanboism aside, I honestly can't understand using Windows for any type of server. Painting flames on the side of a 74 Pinto doesn't make it a race car, and slapping half-assed security and multi-user capability on a desktop OS doesn't make it a server OS.
Yes, and if you have incompetent morons in your pit crew, as you obviously do, it doesn't matter what you drive since they'll keep forgetting to put the tires back on. On the other hand, we're walking Unix servers out the door every day and replacing them with Windows boxes. I think it has something to do with management liking the 24/7 availability on the Tier 1 apps that Unix can no longer provide....
Amen. We don't have as large an infrastructure, but our 13,000 desktops and 2,000 Windows servers were patched in one night without issue, as usual. The Unix SAs, however, struggled for weeks...as usual. I often feel sorry for them, then I realize they bring it on themselves by refusing to enter the 20th century, let alone the 21st.
We don't need to have written a line of Java to know the applications that were written in that abomination of a language are SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW.
fake dinosaur bones that god put in the ground to test our faith
No, no, no, no, NO! You're being lead astray by the dark one! Fossils were not put there by god, they were put there by the DEVIL to lure us away from god. Jeez, don't you know ANYTHING?
Tsk, tsk, tsk! Don't you know: people who share their religious views almost never want to share yours? Shame on you for pointing out the obvious on slashdot! Geez, just because there's lots of places you can get a PC without Windows doesn't mean we need to be telling people! I mean, if people knew that the linux community was just made up of a whiny bunch of pricks who bitch at every turn about how no one else likes their OS....why, people might just not use it!
The reason Slashdotters get their panties in a twist when Microsoft is brought up is because their business practices are not always kosher
Whose? Microsoft of the Slashdotters? 'Cause it's been my experience that most Slashdotters wouldn't know a kosher business practice if it came up and offered them a hot dog. The typical slashdottin' pussy thinks any kind of competition is Evil and failure is everyone else's fault but theirs.
I see it about several times a day in #Kubuntu, often they find the hardware they were complaining about is supported, it just required them to install a package or unblacklist a module etc.
Yeah, you're talking about something completely different. You're talking about a module that supports a particular piece of hardware. This article is talking about a vendor specifically saying "We support Linux". There's a difference. For example, if the vendor doesn't support Linux, you can't call them for support if you're running Linux. The module may work, it may not. If it doesn't, your left hoping someone can help you on the Internet. The article is also specifically talking about a vendor providing Linux as an option on new PCs, which Dell doesn't do much anymore becuase no one asks for it.
Never seen any.
Well, you'll need to be using the Internet for more than 30 seconds, but you'll see them. Give it another minute or two. If you don't see them, you might want to consult a doctor because you've got some seriously bad selective blindness.
What? Like, "If Dell supported Linux I would buy from them", and then the next post, they're pointed to www.dell.com/linux ?
No, like "Vendor X just came out with a great new product. No Linux support yet, though and they claim they have no plans to" Comments: "Time to plaster them with e-mails requesting Linux be official supported." Granted, there's generally an equal number of: "That's ok, the open source community's the greatest thing since sliced bread, they'll come up with their own set of drivers, nyahh!" They rarely materialize, but there's always a lot of enthusiasm.
Conversely, how many average users are going to be going to this site?
I think people who want Linux on Dell don't know about Dell's Linux offerings, which indicates to me they're likely to be more closer to average than geeks.
Yes, just like I said. The average user isn't going to be figuring out how to tell Dell what they want to see in future products.
And, I'll tell you why: these numbers are skewed. How often have we read about Linux fan boys complaining about the lack of Linux support? How often do they start "campaigns" to put it out there to the vendors, get them to notice there's a following? How often have we seen these kinds of posts on just this site? So, when something like this comes along, they stampede the site, attempting to drive up the statistics. Conversely, how many average users are going to be going to this site? Norms who don't even know what Linux is? Not many. Naah, I much more easily buy the story we're getting that's based on sales, because companies are NOTORIOUS for not understanding what their customers want. But, they sure do know how to take their money. Now, those numbers aren't perfect, either because a large portion of requests for Linux are buried inside the orders that are shipped "no OS". Some companies, like mine, purchase their servers through HP or Dell with no OS because we have a volume license agreement with Microsoft. And, we're going to wipe away their installs anyway, even if it did come with one. But, we also purchase a couple of boxes that will run Linux here and there, but we buy them also without OS because we use Redhat Enterprise. If you were to ask our Dell rep, they'd tell you "that company has never requested Linux on a box". They'd also say we've never requested one with Windows, either.:)
That being said because Microsoft successfully monopolized the Office software, they don't need advertise all there features all the time.
In other words: "since Microsoft made their product easier to use despite being more feature-rich, they dominated the market." That's no an act of monopoly, that's just good business. If only open source developers could figure out that if they want people to use their products, their products have to be usable. No more "I don't write documentation, I'm a developer. Read the source code if you want to know how it works" or "I don't have time to put in the features you want. Put them in yourself if they're not there and submit a patch...which will then be summarily dismissed because it's a feature I think is stupid" or "did you look through the 4000 line config file and verify every undocumented option was set correctly?" (I'm looking at YOU, MythTV-project!) or my all-time favorite "RTFM!" Now, with O2K7, Microsoft has taken a quantum leap forward in interface design and made easy enough that the quintessential grandmother can use it to its full potential. I balked at the ribbon myself until I actually used it. Honestly, they got their "wow" out of me after just a couple of minutes using it. Clippy isn't needed anymore, and while most techies will not mourn his death, most users will...until they realize he's no longer necessary which should take them about an hour.
That said things like "we're going to cut off Netscape's air supply", a common statement made by one company when discussing going after their competition. People at Apple have said similar things about Microsoft, and that's ok. Microsoft says it, it's proof of some kind of wrong doing. It's called business, and it's cutthroat. Can't take it, get out.
Bill Gates lying to the court
People lying in court? Really? Oh, the shame! If you can't trust someone under oath, who can you trust. Blah! What about their "expert" witnesses who lied to the court when they presented 6 different situations in which you could disable IE, but it would still come up...only problem is none of them were true. How 'bout the lies from Sun when they discussed MS' Java implemention...that followed the rules laid down by Sun. At least, that is, until they changed the rules and sued MS for not following the new ones all along?
the fact that they were convicted
Convictions are for criminal trials, an anti-trust suit is not a criminal trial, it's a civil trial. You can tell the difference because in a criminal trial there has to be no doubt of a person's guilt. In a civil trial, as long as you tip the scales slightly in your favor, you win. In other words: whoever lies better. It's easy to find a bunch of losers who hate MS simply because MS is better than they are...just stop into any IT department anywhere. Winning an antitrust case that's been brought against you when everyone just "knows" that you're guilty of something is very difficult, if not impossible. Then again, overcoming overwhelming stupidity has always been difficult...
I guess you must have looked out the window or something during that part
And yet, I know more about what happened than you did.
There were internal Microsoft mails where they talked about breaking compatibility with Netscape Navigator
See above.
Looks, you obviously have some kind of agenda
Yup, just trying to cut down on the bullshit and lies.
Yeah, I did, and none of them could provide any real proof of those allegations. As for breaking third-party apps with updates, I'd say the apps were already broken. I've rarely seen apps that are well written that were broken by updates, and those few had patches that came out before the updates (in other words, they tested them and fixed them rather than bitching that it was MS' fault).
I'm surprised you would act incredulous, because the fact of Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position has been clearly documented in a court of law.
Really? When? The only thing I can think of is that DOJ trial of a couple of years ago when a bunch of failing companies petitioned the government to put MS out of business because they couldn't make their failed models work. AOL, Netscape, Sun...bunch of whiny losers who can't put out a good product to save their lives (literally) and it's all MS' fault their businesses barely scrape by, if at all. True, over a decade ago MS told people they had to sell all of their computers with Windows, that practice was stopped in 1995. The reason vendors sell computers with Windows is because that's what people want. Dell sells Linux as an option, and according to them less than one order in a thousand requests it. Similarly with HP and IBM. As for the original article: I gave OSX a year and dumped it because it was a pain in the ass to use. Pretty, but a pain in the ass. I'll just stick with my Windows box where everything just works all the time.
it's the way they're made mandatory and favoured over 3rd party alternatives
Mandatory that they be used? Mandatory that 3rd parties use them? Or, mandatory that they be on the machine? Big differences between all three. There's no mandate that says you have to use IE. I use Firefox and not once have I received a call from Microsoft. Similarly, there's no mandate that third parties use IE as a basis for their apps. A lot of companies see the value in having a single base they code to, but they're the smart ones (described as "being in bed with Microsoft" in Slashdot lingo). The only mandate is that it be on the machine, and why is that? So that they, and 3rd parties, can build against it. Got an app that needs to retrieve web pages? You can either do it from scratch yourself, or just use the APIs that are already available. This is the fundamental problem with Linux: no standards. There's 500 different ways to accomplish the same goals and achieve the same results. Some call this "flexibility". Those who know what they're doing call it "wasteful".
EU got a different build of Windows when requested MS to remove Media Player, that shouldn't have to happen
You're right, the governments should stay out of the technology field if they don't understand it, but what are you going to do? Or, are you suggesting that Media Player is something that people don't want? 'Cause the fact that about three copies of MP-less Windows sold in the EU is proof enough that MS is just providing people what they want. It's only politicians and those duped by them who think differently.
On a Mac, if you drag Safari to the trash bin it will not drag the Help system with it
Yes, indicating that while they're both programs designed to show hyperlinked documents, Apple went one way and designed two separate pieces of software to do the same thing, whereas MS built one and then built the other to utilize the first. That's called "reusing code". Just because everyone else does things wrong doesn't make it right.
some DVD/CD burner program (believe it or not, WindowsXP does *not* do this out of the box!)
I forget the current Slashdot stance: do we want Windows to do everything out of the box, or do we want to chastise them for doing anything out of the box because that drives away competition? I mean, if they're going to be chastised for including a web browser (an absolute essential for everyone these days), but then complain that they don't include burning software (still only needed by a subset of everyone) isn't that a little hypocritical? If they did include burning software, wouldn't that drive Roxio and Nero out of business like IE did Netscape?
In real life we create zoning laws to keep that stuff where its both easily accessed by those that want it and easily avoided by those who dont
No. Unfortunately, in the real world, the zoning laws are used to squeeze them out. For example, my home town zoning states there can't be an adult establishment within 3500 feet of a residential area, school, shopping center, church or other adult establishment. Even if an area is zoned industrial, if there's one house in the range of the radius, that area's out. It leaves very little option for placement within the city, and since all of the surrounding areas have zoned them out of their towns entirely, options become more limited.
That being said, the Internet ain't the real world and setting up "zoning" laws is easy and effective. But, after seeing what happens in the real world where what seems like a reasonable solution turns out to be an unreasonable nightmare. People get a little gunshy.
...in all fairness, are any of them compatible with anything anyway? The apps listed are particularly notorious for being crashy and unreliable on any platform.
Oddly enough, that's not a good thing for me. I use Ajaxterm to administer some systems, and always connected to it with IE because Firefox blocked the clipboard. MS has implemented it properly now by offering me a warning rather than just deciding how I should be able to use my computer. Although, to be honest, I knew about the "issue" in the past, I just wasn't that concerned about it. How often do I have something in my clipboard I don't want someone else to see? And, how likely is it I'll hit a "malicious site" at the exact moment I happened to have it in there? There are levels of acceptable risks, and it's up to ME to decide what they are, not the FF devs.
Slashdot Mirror
So there are places where Internet access is available but prohibitively expensive.
You're absolutely right, the rest of the world should slow down so everyone can catch up. Sorry, this isn't an excuse. If a person chooses to live in bum-fuck nowhere, then they get to take advantage of the lack of services that are offered in those areas. If they want all of the services you get in a big city, they have to move to a big city. Otherwise, they get what they paid for.
I did, just last night. 15-20 minutes, which included downloading the updates. Your computer is broken, fix it and stop blaming everyone else.
Oh wait, I guess that falls under the "stupid" category, doesn't it?
No more so than having a passionate love for Linux or Apple. Some people like to work with what works, some like to work harder than they need to. Different strokes for different folks.
Former proprietary customer: I switched from my proprietary software for no apparent logical reason and am unhappy!
Not sure if you're being funny or dense. Since this is slashdot, I'll err on the side of dense. The original poster was making the point that for years we've been hearing the OSS community whine about how no one's using their software in any significant amount. "But, it's free! And, there's no bugs! And, it's faster! And, it's more stable! And, support is more readily available! And, since there's many eyes on it, bugs are fixed instantaneously! Not that there's any bugs, mind you! And, and...what were your needs again? Oh, yeah, we support that!" And yet, when people try it and inevitably complain about the poor quality of the code, the response is typically something along the lines of "Submit a patch" or "Submit a bug report". Worse are the "You must be using it wrong", "It works on my machine" and "It works fine, you're just a Microsoft shill!" Even better, when you point these kinds of things out to the OSS devout, they tell you that never happens and everyone's warm, loving and welcoming.
But, hey, what do I know? I've only been playing with Linux off and on since 1994...
Ok, I'm being punk'd, right? All those zero-day exploits, known vulnerabilities that go unpatched for months, ActiveX - you're are just messing with me, right? When you say security (as I concede usability, and you will never convince me on performance or reliability), you must be talking about several layers of third-party apps to buttress the built-in "protection" of Windows.
:) In the two and a half years at this company, I can only think of one, maybe two, times we've pushed out a patch the day it was released.
... still mired in "this is the way we've always done things"', but I've never heard or read of someone seriously making this argument for Windows as a server OS.
:)
Since your Windows experience is second-hand, I'll let you in on the big secret: there's a simple security checklist the Microsoft has published for years. Follow those 20-25 simple recommendations (such as securing your file system, disable unnecessary services, use privilege separation...sound familiar??) and about 99% of those issues can't affect you. Period. My favorite example is CodeRed from a few years back. In order to be affected by that, you'd have to 1) install IPP, which no one used 2) allow your web service write access to 3) known locations on the drive that 4) contained "sample" scripts. If any one of the basic security best practices had been followed, the server wouldn't have be compromised by that attack. Who's at fault for that failing, the OS or the "admin"? Solaris was also vulnerable to CodeRed, but didn't get hit as bad. Why? 'Cause the Unix guys secure their boxes. Whenever we get a patch notice from MS, we review the impact and determine if there's a need. More often than not, even the security updates labeled "critical" get pushed back into the 6-week patch cycle and the only reason we keep that schedule is to make sure the supporties remember there's a maintenance window.
Maybe I just fall into your category of 'older folks
Considering how often they fall prey to these kinds of issues, perhaps you should revisit your support of their opinions?
I can't comment on the competency of our Win Admins as I am definitely not one myself. But I do read several trade publications and websites, and it seems the problems they constantly deal with are not uncommon.
I would disagree...to a point. They're common for magazine writers and the general slashdot crowd, however, those of us in the know know better. Is there a learning curve with Windows? Certainly, and it's much higher than Unix, but the initial slopes are exactly the same. What steps do you take to secure a Unix box? Believe it or not, they're exactly the same on a Windows box. The problem is most Unix admins choose to look solely at the GUI and say "Fah! Fisher Price!" without bothering to realize there's a lot more to it than first glance.
I have no reason to doubt what you say, and maybe it's just that my 20 years in IT have been atypical, but I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around that concept
No, they haven't. I my 20+ years, I've dealt with a fair amount of incompetence. It's been growing in recent years, though, and it's coming from both fronts. The new people coming in barely know anything about Windows beyond what they got from their certifications classes, and the older folks are still mired in "this is the way we've always done things". I like to take the middle ground and go with what works...until something better comes along, and there's always something better coming along. Right now, in terms of usability AND performance, security and reliability, Windows is far ahead in the race with Unix starting to slog quickly behind in the last three (from an end-user perspective, it never had the first). But, those only come with experience and no one wants to put the time in to do things right anymore. Shame...
I tell 'em all, young and old, the same thing: imagine you're a tech at Microsoft and you've just been called up to Bill's office. Tell me how long you'll be employed if you try to use one of those "Bleh, that's just Windows!" type lines...once they learn to remove that hammer from their toolboxes, the rest comes easy.
No, it's your incompetence that causes the high administration costs. We have 16 people to manage 15,000 Windows boxes and 137 Unix twits to manage about 800 boxes. Who's got the higher cost of ownership again?
All fanboism aside, I honestly can't understand using Windows for any type of server. Painting flames on the side of a 74 Pinto doesn't make it a race car, and slapping half-assed security and multi-user capability on a desktop OS doesn't make it a server OS.
Yes, and if you have incompetent morons in your pit crew, as you obviously do, it doesn't matter what you drive since they'll keep forgetting to put the tires back on. On the other hand, we're walking Unix servers out the door every day and replacing them with Windows boxes. I think it has something to do with management liking the 24/7 availability on the Tier 1 apps that Unix can no longer provide....
Amen. We don't have as large an infrastructure, but our 13,000 desktops and 2,000 Windows servers were patched in one night without issue, as usual. The Unix SAs, however, struggled for weeks...as usual. I often feel sorry for them, then I realize they bring it on themselves by refusing to enter the 20th century, let alone the 21st.
We don't need to have written a line of Java to know the applications that were written in that abomination of a language are SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW.
fake dinosaur bones that god put in the ground to test our faith
No, no, no, no, NO! You're being lead astray by the dark one! Fossils were not put there by god, they were put there by the DEVIL to lure us away from god. Jeez, don't you know ANYTHING?
Tsk, tsk, tsk! Don't you know: people who share their religious views almost never want to share yours? Shame on you for pointing out the obvious on slashdot! Geez, just because there's lots of places you can get a PC without Windows doesn't mean we need to be telling people! I mean, if people knew that the linux community was just made up of a whiny bunch of pricks who bitch at every turn about how no one else likes their OS....why, people might just not use it!
The reason Slashdotters get their panties in a twist when Microsoft is brought up is because their business practices are not always kosher
Whose? Microsoft of the Slashdotters? 'Cause it's been my experience that most Slashdotters wouldn't know a kosher business practice if it came up and offered them a hot dog. The typical slashdottin' pussy thinks any kind of competition is Evil and failure is everyone else's fault but theirs.
I see it about several times a day in #Kubuntu, often they find the hardware they were complaining about is supported, it just required them to install a package or unblacklist a module etc.
Yeah, you're talking about something completely different. You're talking about a module that supports a particular piece of hardware. This article is talking about a vendor specifically saying "We support Linux". There's a difference. For example, if the vendor doesn't support Linux, you can't call them for support if you're running Linux. The module may work, it may not. If it doesn't, your left hoping someone can help you on the Internet. The article is also specifically talking about a vendor providing Linux as an option on new PCs, which Dell doesn't do much anymore becuase no one asks for it.
Never seen any.
Well, you'll need to be using the Internet for more than 30 seconds, but you'll see them. Give it another minute or two. If you don't see them, you might want to consult a doctor because you've got some seriously bad selective blindness.
What? Like, "If Dell supported Linux I would buy from them", and then the next post, they're pointed to www.dell.com/linux ?
No, like "Vendor X just came out with a great new product. No Linux support yet, though and they claim they have no plans to" Comments: "Time to plaster them with e-mails requesting Linux be official supported." Granted, there's generally an equal number of: "That's ok, the open source community's the greatest thing since sliced bread, they'll come up with their own set of drivers, nyahh!" They rarely materialize, but there's always a lot of enthusiasm.
Conversely, how many average users are going to be going to this site? I think people who want Linux on Dell don't know about Dell's Linux offerings, which indicates to me they're likely to be more closer to average than geeks.
Yes, just like I said. The average user isn't going to be figuring out how to tell Dell what they want to see in future products.
And, I'll tell you why: these numbers are skewed. How often have we read about Linux fan boys complaining about the lack of Linux support? How often do they start "campaigns" to put it out there to the vendors, get them to notice there's a following? How often have we seen these kinds of posts on just this site? So, when something like this comes along, they stampede the site, attempting to drive up the statistics. Conversely, how many average users are going to be going to this site? Norms who don't even know what Linux is? Not many. Naah, I much more easily buy the story we're getting that's based on sales, because companies are NOTORIOUS for not understanding what their customers want. But, they sure do know how to take their money. Now, those numbers aren't perfect, either because a large portion of requests for Linux are buried inside the orders that are shipped "no OS". Some companies, like mine, purchase their servers through HP or Dell with no OS because we have a volume license agreement with Microsoft. And, we're going to wipe away their installs anyway, even if it did come with one. But, we also purchase a couple of boxes that will run Linux here and there, but we buy them also without OS because we use Redhat Enterprise. If you were to ask our Dell rep, they'd tell you "that company has never requested Linux on a box". They'd also say we've never requested one with Windows, either. :)
That being said because Microsoft successfully monopolized the Office software, they don't need advertise all there features all the time.
In other words: "since Microsoft made their product easier to use despite being more feature-rich, they dominated the market." That's no an act of monopoly, that's just good business. If only open source developers could figure out that if they want people to use their products, their products have to be usable. No more "I don't write documentation, I'm a developer. Read the source code if you want to know how it works" or "I don't have time to put in the features you want. Put them in yourself if they're not there and submit a patch...which will then be summarily dismissed because it's a feature I think is stupid" or "did you look through the 4000 line config file and verify every undocumented option was set correctly?" (I'm looking at YOU, MythTV-project!) or my all-time favorite "RTFM!" Now, with O2K7, Microsoft has taken a quantum leap forward in interface design and made easy enough that the quintessential grandmother can use it to its full potential. I balked at the ribbon myself until I actually used it. Honestly, they got their "wow" out of me after just a couple of minutes using it. Clippy isn't needed anymore, and while most techies will not mourn his death, most users will...until they realize he's no longer necessary which should take them about an hour.
except actual witness accounts
Uncorroborated witness accounts.
internal mails from Microsoft
That said things like "we're going to cut off Netscape's air supply", a common statement made by one company when discussing going after their competition. People at Apple have said similar things about Microsoft, and that's ok. Microsoft says it, it's proof of some kind of wrong doing. It's called business, and it's cutthroat. Can't take it, get out.
Bill Gates lying to the court
People lying in court? Really? Oh, the shame! If you can't trust someone under oath, who can you trust. Blah! What about their "expert" witnesses who lied to the court when they presented 6 different situations in which you could disable IE, but it would still come up...only problem is none of them were true. How 'bout the lies from Sun when they discussed MS' Java implemention...that followed the rules laid down by Sun. At least, that is, until they changed the rules and sued MS for not following the new ones all along?
the fact that they were convicted
Convictions are for criminal trials, an anti-trust suit is not a criminal trial, it's a civil trial. You can tell the difference because in a criminal trial there has to be no doubt of a person's guilt. In a civil trial, as long as you tip the scales slightly in your favor, you win. In other words: whoever lies better. It's easy to find a bunch of losers who hate MS simply because MS is better than they are...just stop into any IT department anywhere. Winning an antitrust case that's been brought against you when everyone just "knows" that you're guilty of something is very difficult, if not impossible. Then again, overcoming overwhelming stupidity has always been difficult...
I guess you must have looked out the window or something during that part
And yet, I know more about what happened than you did.
There were internal Microsoft mails where they talked about breaking compatibility with Netscape Navigator
See above.
Looks, you obviously have some kind of agenda
Yup, just trying to cut down on the bullshit and lies.
Have a nice weekend.
Thanks! You, too!
Yeah, I did, and none of them could provide any real proof of those allegations. As for breaking third-party apps with updates, I'd say the apps were already broken. I've rarely seen apps that are well written that were broken by updates, and those few had patches that came out before the updates (in other words, they tested them and fixed them rather than bitching that it was MS' fault).
I'm surprised you would act incredulous, because the fact of Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position has been clearly documented in a court of law.
Really? When? The only thing I can think of is that DOJ trial of a couple of years ago when a bunch of failing companies petitioned the government to put MS out of business because they couldn't make their failed models work. AOL, Netscape, Sun...bunch of whiny losers who can't put out a good product to save their lives (literally) and it's all MS' fault their businesses barely scrape by, if at all. True, over a decade ago MS told people they had to sell all of their computers with Windows, that practice was stopped in 1995. The reason vendors sell computers with Windows is because that's what people want. Dell sells Linux as an option, and according to them less than one order in a thousand requests it. Similarly with HP and IBM. As for the original article: I gave OSX a year and dumped it because it was a pain in the ass to use. Pretty, but a pain in the ass. I'll just stick with my Windows box where everything just works all the time.
it's the way they're made mandatory and favoured over 3rd party alternatives
Mandatory that they be used? Mandatory that 3rd parties use them? Or, mandatory that they be on the machine? Big differences between all three. There's no mandate that says you have to use IE. I use Firefox and not once have I received a call from Microsoft. Similarly, there's no mandate that third parties use IE as a basis for their apps. A lot of companies see the value in having a single base they code to, but they're the smart ones (described as "being in bed with Microsoft" in Slashdot lingo). The only mandate is that it be on the machine, and why is that? So that they, and 3rd parties, can build against it. Got an app that needs to retrieve web pages? You can either do it from scratch yourself, or just use the APIs that are already available. This is the fundamental problem with Linux: no standards. There's 500 different ways to accomplish the same goals and achieve the same results. Some call this "flexibility". Those who know what they're doing call it "wasteful".
EU got a different build of Windows when requested MS to remove Media Player, that shouldn't have to happen
You're right, the governments should stay out of the technology field if they don't understand it, but what are you going to do? Or, are you suggesting that Media Player is something that people don't want? 'Cause the fact that about three copies of MP-less Windows sold in the EU is proof enough that MS is just providing people what they want. It's only politicians and those duped by them who think differently.
On a Mac, if you drag Safari to the trash bin it will not drag the Help system with it
Yes, indicating that while they're both programs designed to show hyperlinked documents, Apple went one way and designed two separate pieces of software to do the same thing, whereas MS built one and then built the other to utilize the first. That's called "reusing code". Just because everyone else does things wrong doesn't make it right.
some DVD/CD burner program (believe it or not, WindowsXP does *not* do this out of the box!)
I forget the current Slashdot stance: do we want Windows to do everything out of the box, or do we want to chastise them for doing anything out of the box because that drives away competition? I mean, if they're going to be chastised for including a web browser (an absolute essential for everyone these days), but then complain that they don't include burning software (still only needed by a subset of everyone) isn't that a little hypocritical? If they did include burning software, wouldn't that drive Roxio and Nero out of business like IE did Netscape?
In real life we create zoning laws to keep that stuff where its both easily accessed by those that want it and easily avoided by those who dont
No. Unfortunately, in the real world, the zoning laws are used to squeeze them out. For example, my home town zoning states there can't be an adult establishment within 3500 feet of a residential area, school, shopping center, church or other adult establishment. Even if an area is zoned industrial, if there's one house in the range of the radius, that area's out. It leaves very little option for placement within the city, and since all of the surrounding areas have zoned them out of their towns entirely, options become more limited.
That being said, the Internet ain't the real world and setting up "zoning" laws is easy and effective. But, after seeing what happens in the real world where what seems like a reasonable solution turns out to be an unreasonable nightmare. People get a little gunshy.
...in all fairness, are any of them compatible with anything anyway? The apps listed are particularly notorious for being crashy and unreliable on any platform.
Yes, but still a minor risk and handled better now by MS than FF.
Oddly enough, that's not a good thing for me. I use Ajaxterm to administer some systems, and always connected to it with IE because Firefox blocked the clipboard. MS has implemented it properly now by offering me a warning rather than just deciding how I should be able to use my computer. Although, to be honest, I knew about the "issue" in the past, I just wasn't that concerned about it. How often do I have something in my clipboard I don't want someone else to see? And, how likely is it I'll hit a "malicious site" at the exact moment I happened to have it in there? There are levels of acceptable risks, and it's up to ME to decide what they are, not the FF devs.