I get it, you're one of those blind Microsoft defenders. Sorry but the absolute truth is that Windows 9x really, really sucked, but superior alternatives were bullied out of the way by illegal OEM deals (I notice you didn't address these in your post). Microsoft is just now catching up to concepts introduced by NexStep in 1990 and OS X five years ago. You're still running in an admin account in the year 2006, and Windows requires "Defender" software to diaper itself from the Internet. You don't think that's a bit ridiculous?
You are obviously one of those blind Microsoft haters. Sorry but the absolute truth is that many Microsoft products have distinct merits over their competitors. In the 90's, my schools had both Mac's and Windows 9x's. Every machine installed both WordPerfect and Microsoft Word, Lotus and Excel. I used both and liked both. Afterwards Microsoft came out with OLE so that I can copy and paste pictures and charts freely onto slides and documents. That's when I started using office suite only. I used to use Borland C++ only, but Microsoft first came out with a debugging environment where I could switch between a GUI window and the code behind the user interface. I eagerly waited for the Borland 5.0 to support the same feature, but when it came out, it was still DOS based, that's when I stopped using Borland. I used to use non-Microsoft code editors, such as Brief, only, but after Visual C++ 2.0, I used Microsoft code editor only as it was easier to learn and use. All my conversions to Microsoft products were based on specific technical merits where their competitors' products lacked. This all happened when I was a university student where I had a free choice of Mac, Windows, and Unix machines. And that was the choice of most students around me at that time. Money was not an issue. Business practice was not an issue as competitors' products were abundantly and freely available on campus.
I don't understand your circular logic. I can understand that a company can use its monopoly to force out competitors. I don't understand how a company can force out competitors before it becomes a monopoly. A robber with a shotgun can force me to give him all my money. How can a 3 year old with a plastic knife force me to do the same thing? Many people on slashdot refuse to admit that Microsoft's products won a lot of market share through their merits, not illegal business maneuvers. They insist that Microsoft won its dominance only through illegal means and that whatever alternative they support only has technical merits. As long as they only live in their fantasy world, they will never achieve their goals in real life.
Re:Ma Bell? Yo no entiendo - SHORT VERSION
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
Of course, if we had government owned lines, maybe we'd have free phone like we have mostly free roads, then again, maybe not.
You may get free phone service, but government will more than make it up by taxing you more. Please stop advocating giving more power to governments, local or federal. No commercial entities can ever come close to the true monopoly of governments.
Depend on what kind of people you call smart. As a techie myself, I sincerely wish we were the smart people. But after seeing CEO's, politicians, and lawyers making much more money, getting more pretty girls, living in grand mansions, and having much more influence in the world in general, I seriously doubt we are the smart people. Maybe we are just smart at certain things but stupid at the more important stuff. When you spend your time on figuring out which browser to use, you have less time on getting money and power.
What you mean is that you got so so mentally stuck and so unable to change, to learn and to adapt, or became simply too fragging lazy to even consider using anything else than some good/bad [doesn't really matter] app you got used to ?
Don't be too harsh on people. People have lives. Software is merely a tool in their life, just like a hammer, a calculator, or a car. If a tool is good enough for you, you keep using it. Do you keep looking for the next better and cheaper hammer everyday? Are you sure you have got the best hammer for you at the lowest price? Just because you are interested in looking at different softwares doesn't mean everyone else should do that too. And the fact that most people are not interested in other software alternatives doesn't make them stupid, lazy, or otherwise inferior to you in any way.
I am yet to see a single government website that only publishes documents in Windows Word, they always provide pdf as another format, if not pdf alone.
Microsoft Word didn't become popular through government regulation. It was widely used before government websites started to publish documents in its format. You cannot say the same thing for the OpenDocument format. In this case, the OSS community is trying to get their format widely used through government intervention, instead of free market action.
That's obviously because they're using Linux. I mean, product delays never happen in the Windows world.
But I was told Linux is superior to Windows. Those bad things happened in the Windows world don't happen in the Linux world. Now that more people have tried Linux in the real word, looks like Linux is just another overly hyped OS.
So far I have yet to see any government website which only offers Microsoft Word document, they typically offer PDF files as well, if not PDF files only. I don't understand what you are complaining about.
As far as cable TV's are concerned, I happened to work in the cable TV industry. I know for sure that every operator has their own proprietary headend equipment which makes it extremely hard for any new vendors who want to enter the market with a new type of settop box. Have you ever wondered why PC industry has made so much progress in the past 2 decades yet there are far less technological advances on TV sets, TV networks, or TV settop boxes? Because TV industry is controlled by some local monopolies which are below the radar screen of federal government. Even Microsoft and Intel had failed to penetrate the market after billions of dollars of investment. You call Microsoft stifling innovation? You have seen nothing yet.
You guys are idealists. You seem to think that non-profit organizations are run by saints. No they are not. All human beings have short-comings and they typically fight for their own selfish interests. In the business world, everyone fights for money which makes the selfish motives very obvious, hence an easy tartet. Non-profit organizations make the selfish motives less obvious, hence fooled people like you. Let's use universities as an example. I know many professors, especially those in the famous universities, who focus their energy on getting more research funds instead of honing their teaching skills even though students are the main customers of universities. Students paid hefty tuitions while professors' main focus was somewhere else. Do students have many choices? Not really. In many cases, it's the name of the university that matters, not the actual quality of education that you receive. And there are way more hopeful students than a handful of pretigious univerties can accept. This de facto monopoly of elite education makes it possible for professors to assign lower priorities to the needs of their primary customer -- students.
In my experience, de facto standards almost always win in the free market over standards coming from a committee. Coming from a non-profit organization doesn't make a standard superior to its proprietary counterparts.
Sybase failed due to cutting a deal with MS. But it was totally legal.
If you have read Mitchell Kertzman's testimony during the antitrust case, you can see that the claim is still that Microsoft conducted illegal activities against Sybase. His testimony contributed to the conviction of Microsoft in the case. I didn't work at Sybase, so I don't know how much truth is in Mr. Kertzman's testimony. But I do know that he is a big liar.
I not so sure about all those accusations of Microsoft killing competitors illegally. At least I don't think Microsoft Word kills WordStar or WordPerfect illegally. I have read a book written by the former dev lead or project manager (?) of WordStar and he clearly stated that the deadly blow came from a wrong decision from upper management. I can give you one personal example. I used to work for a silicon valley company called Liberate Technologies. The CEO was Mitchell Kertzman, who happened to be the former CEO of Sybase. Mr. Kertzman was one of Justice Department's key witnesses against Microsoft in the antitrust case. Of course the claim was that Microsoft SQL Server stole technologies from Sybase illegally and destroyed Sybase during the process. Mr. Kertzman bashed Microsoft at every opportunity. In the end, Liberate Technologies failed miserably as it turned out the accounting books were cooked and so called business deals were faked. During its heydays, Mr. Kertzman managed to get $400 million cash from investors for a company with less than 400 employees. In the end, investors and regular employees lost big time but Mr. Kertzman walked away with at least $30 million in his own pocket for running a company into ground in less than 4 years. The company is still around and is being sold piecemeal right now but Mr. Kertzman was forced out many years ago when the scandal broke out. Today, if you search on google, Mr. Kertzman is still one of the most influential people in this country and he still bashes Microsoft whenever he can. But I know, through years of working under him, that he is a crook and he tells lies better than most people. I am not so sure Sybase failed just because of Microsoft. With Mr. Kertzman at the helm, Sybase would be really lucky to be a truly successful company in the long run. It's always easy to blame outside factors for your own failures but in almost every case, the internal elements are the deciding factors. Microsoft is just an easy target for being too successful.
Government can do what it wants. But I wouldn't call it free market. Yes, government mandates can be changed, even constitution can be amended, it is just a very slow and costly process. Back to my main point. MASS government can dictate whatever file format it wants, but it is not free market because government is not any player, it has special powers to make enterprises prosper or die based on its wish while regular players in a free market don't have this power.
While Microsoft has tried to influence the government, so does every other coorporation as well as so-called non-profit organizations. It is still a level playground. And obviously Microsoft didn't do a very good job at influencing the government, they got indicted and convicted by their own government. But this is beside the point.
Government is not just any participant, it is a superpower player. In fact, government is the biggest monopoly of all. Yet some self-claimed free market proponents always look to the government to intervene. They are just give the government more and more power over time. Today, the government can dictate a file format, tomorrow it can dictate what color of clothes you should ware. Garment vendors are free to compete as long as they make only blue clothes. Don't take it as a joke as it actually happened in China in the 1970's.
My argument has been government should not dictate file format, they are not the best qualified people. And government intervention invariably leads to innovation stifling. For example, it would be very hard to add new features as every addition would require new legislature approval.
If the government tax forms or driving license applications were in a proprietary microsoft format, individual consumers would have no choice but to purchase microsoft applications at whatever price microsoft decided to charge.
Microsoft offers free viewers for all its office documents to users without Microsoft Office. Check it out at http://www.microsoft.com/office/000/viewers.asp. So at least there is no price involved in this case. Government should not dictate technical details, such as file format, it should be decided in the free market.
Using that logic, MS has had 'government protection' from MA up until this point. So don't make out like they're being unfairly dealt with here...
I don't think there is an MA law that requires Microsoft Word Document be used. It just happened naturally after Microsoft Office became widely used in the market. In the case of OpenDocument. The legislation dictates its usage before it becomes widely accepted in the market. I think there is a difference there.
Microsoft offers free office document viewers for people without Microsoft Office. You can download them at http://www.microsoft.com/office/000/viewers.asp.
Check your facts before open your mouth.
Maybe to you open standards are a panacea. But to me it is not so obvious at all. But this is such a deep issue that cannot be thoroughly addressed in a couple of paragraphs. My point is that don't assume your point of view, no matter how strongly you believe in them, is automatically supported by most other people.
Proprietary format doesn't automatically mean a single company. It just means other companies may have to pay a license fee to get access to the format. Money is the main incentive for innovation in this society. Even though many people hate it, a money driven system is the best for market so far. Government dictation has been proven to be bad for market over the long run, as evidenced by the big failures of the communist economic systems.
By dictating a specific format, the government is forcing, indirectly, vendors to adopt that format. Throughout human history, choice by government bears tremendous weight on the outcome of events. Consider christianity, it became widely adopted after the endorsement of Emperor Constantine.
The open source society is trying to increase their popularity through government intervention. I just want to point out that it is hypocritical to label government intervention as free market.
Anyone can choose whatever file format they think appropriate for them. But government has much more power than individuals. If government tax forms or driver license application forms are in OpenDocument format, then individual consumers have no choice but to get OpenDocument products.
My main point is that if OpenDocument wants government protection, then don't label themselves as free market. Government dictation is not free market.
I think you twisted the definition of free market to suit your own preferences. Free market is a business concept, while open format is purely a technical one. A free market should allow businesses to compete based on their own choices instead of forcing them to adopt just one choice. Microsoft thinks using their closed format enable them to compete better. A free market should allow Microsoft to compete based on their believes and let the open format win on the open market through consumers' choosing open format products instead of government regulation.
First of all, this caveman is not just grunting by the camp fire, I am asking "what am I missing?" -- it's not nice to make fun of others for being inquisitive.
Sorry for making fun of you. Just can't help it.
Secondly, since AOL and MSN are things used primarily by the less savvy computer users, and I am a very experienced internet user and computer professional -- a more accurate analogy would be: This Firefox and Email user is wondering why the cavemen carry clubs and live in caves when there are grocery stores and houses available.
Maybe because the caveman knows that after the next world war, his descendants will survive, but yours won't.
On a similar note, a caveman has been wondering why you need firefox and email when he can learn everything he needs to know by grunting to each other next to the camp fire.
Isn't Open Source supposed to be superior to proprietary solutions? Now that Open Source projects have experienced the same delay as their proprietary counterparts in the real world, it makes me wonder whether Open Source will experience other typical problems as well, such as buggy software, costly support, security loopholes, etc. Maybe Open Source is not as great as its supporters have claimed. Maybe it is just as lame and costly as any other software products. Maybe Microsoft is better after all. I am just wondering...
In other words, winners are evil, losers are not. This makes wonder whether this whole evil labeling is just a byproduct of jealousy, the queen of all evil.
Slashdot Mirror
I get it, you're one of those blind Microsoft defenders. Sorry but the absolute truth is that Windows 9x really, really sucked, but superior alternatives were bullied out of the way by illegal OEM deals (I notice you didn't address these in your post). Microsoft is just now catching up to concepts introduced by NexStep in 1990 and OS X five years ago. You're still running in an admin account in the year 2006, and Windows requires "Defender" software to diaper itself from the Internet. You don't think that's a bit ridiculous?
You are obviously one of those blind Microsoft haters. Sorry but the absolute truth is that many Microsoft products have distinct merits over their competitors. In the 90's, my schools had both Mac's and Windows 9x's. Every machine installed both WordPerfect and Microsoft Word, Lotus and Excel. I used both and liked both. Afterwards Microsoft came out with OLE so that I can copy and paste pictures and charts freely onto slides and documents. That's when I started using office suite only. I used to use Borland C++ only, but Microsoft first came out with a debugging environment where I could switch between a GUI window and the code behind the user interface. I eagerly waited for the Borland 5.0 to support the same feature, but when it came out, it was still DOS based, that's when I stopped using Borland. I used to use non-Microsoft code editors, such as Brief, only, but after Visual C++ 2.0, I used Microsoft code editor only as it was easier to learn and use. All my conversions to Microsoft products were based on specific technical merits where their competitors' products lacked. This all happened when I was a university student where I had a free choice of Mac, Windows, and Unix machines. And that was the choice of most students around me at that time. Money was not an issue. Business practice was not an issue as competitors' products were abundantly and freely available on campus.
I don't understand your circular logic. I can understand that a company can use its monopoly to force out competitors. I don't understand how a company can force out competitors before it becomes a monopoly. A robber with a shotgun can force me to give him all my money. How can a 3 year old with a plastic knife force me to do the same thing? Many people on slashdot refuse to admit that Microsoft's products won a lot of market share through their merits, not illegal business maneuvers. They insist that Microsoft won its dominance only through illegal means and that whatever alternative they support only has technical merits. As long as they only live in their fantasy world, they will never achieve their goals in real life.
Of course, if we had government owned lines, maybe we'd have free phone like we have mostly free roads, then again, maybe not.
You may get free phone service, but government will more than make it up by taxing you more. Please stop advocating giving more power to governments, local or federal. No commercial entities can ever come close to the true monopoly of governments.
Smart people use firefox.
Depend on what kind of people you call smart. As a techie myself, I sincerely wish we were the smart people. But after seeing CEO's, politicians, and lawyers making much more money, getting more pretty girls, living in grand mansions, and having much more influence in the world in general, I seriously doubt we are the smart people. Maybe we are just smart at certain things but stupid at the more important stuff. When you spend your time on figuring out which browser to use, you have less time on getting money and power.
What you mean is that you got so so mentally stuck and so unable to change, to learn and to adapt, or became simply too fragging lazy to even consider using anything else than some good/bad [doesn't really matter] app you got used to ?
Don't be too harsh on people. People have lives. Software is merely a tool in their life, just like a hammer, a calculator, or a car. If a tool is good enough for you, you keep using it. Do you keep looking for the next better and cheaper hammer everyday? Are you sure you have got the best hammer for you at the lowest price? Just because you are interested in looking at different softwares doesn't mean everyone else should do that too. And the fact that most people are not interested in other software alternatives doesn't make them stupid, lazy, or otherwise inferior to you in any way.
I am yet to see a single government website that only publishes documents in Windows Word, they always provide pdf as another format, if not pdf alone.
Microsoft Word didn't become popular through government regulation. It was widely used before government websites started to publish documents in its format. You cannot say the same thing for the OpenDocument format. In this case, the OSS community is trying to get their format widely used through government intervention, instead of free market action.
There is no other monopoly ('cept maybe food...maybe!) other than music that is guaranteed by humanity.
Sorry I have to disagree with you. But I have to put food, house, toilet, and sex ahead of music.
That's obviously because they're using Linux. I mean, product delays never happen in the Windows world.
But I was told Linux is superior to Windows. Those bad things happened in the Windows world don't happen in the Linux world. Now that more people have tried Linux in the real word, looks like Linux is just another overly hyped OS.
So far I have yet to see any government website which only offers Microsoft Word document, they typically offer PDF files as well, if not PDF files only. I don't understand what you are complaining about.
As far as cable TV's are concerned, I happened to work in the cable TV industry. I know for sure that every operator has their own proprietary headend equipment which makes it extremely hard for any new vendors who want to enter the market with a new type of settop box. Have you ever wondered why PC industry has made so much progress in the past 2 decades yet there are far less technological advances on TV sets, TV networks, or TV settop boxes? Because TV industry is controlled by some local monopolies which are below the radar screen of federal government. Even Microsoft and Intel had failed to penetrate the market after billions of dollars of investment. You call Microsoft stifling innovation? You have seen nothing yet.
You guys are idealists. You seem to think that non-profit organizations are run by saints. No they are not. All human beings have short-comings and they typically fight for their own selfish interests. In the business world, everyone fights for money which makes the selfish motives very obvious, hence an easy tartet. Non-profit organizations make the selfish motives less obvious, hence fooled people like you. Let's use universities as an example. I know many professors, especially those in the famous universities, who focus their energy on getting more research funds instead of honing their teaching skills even though students are the main customers of universities. Students paid hefty tuitions while professors' main focus was somewhere else. Do students have many choices? Not really. In many cases, it's the name of the university that matters, not the actual quality of education that you receive. And there are way more hopeful students than a handful of pretigious univerties can accept. This de facto monopoly of elite education makes it possible for professors to assign lower priorities to the needs of their primary customer -- students.
In my experience, de facto standards almost always win in the free market over standards coming from a committee. Coming from a non-profit organization doesn't make a standard superior to its proprietary counterparts.
Sybase failed due to cutting a deal with MS. But it was totally legal.
If you have read Mitchell Kertzman's testimony during the antitrust case, you can see that the claim is still that Microsoft conducted illegal activities against Sybase. His testimony contributed to the conviction of Microsoft in the case. I didn't work at Sybase, so I don't know how much truth is in Mr. Kertzman's testimony. But I do know that he is a big liar.
I not so sure about all those accusations of Microsoft killing competitors illegally. At least I don't think Microsoft Word kills WordStar or WordPerfect illegally. I have read a book written by the former dev lead or project manager (?) of WordStar and he clearly stated that the deadly blow came from a wrong decision from upper management. I can give you one personal example. I used to work for a silicon valley company called Liberate Technologies. The CEO was Mitchell Kertzman, who happened to be the former CEO of Sybase. Mr. Kertzman was one of Justice Department's key witnesses against Microsoft in the antitrust case. Of course the claim was that Microsoft SQL Server stole technologies from Sybase illegally and destroyed Sybase during the process. Mr. Kertzman bashed Microsoft at every opportunity. In the end, Liberate Technologies failed miserably as it turned out the accounting books were cooked and so called business deals were faked. During its heydays, Mr. Kertzman managed to get $400 million cash from investors for a company with less than 400 employees. In the end, investors and regular employees lost big time but Mr. Kertzman walked away with at least $30 million in his own pocket for running a company into ground in less than 4 years. The company is still around and is being sold piecemeal right now but Mr. Kertzman was forced out many years ago when the scandal broke out. Today, if you search on google, Mr. Kertzman is still one of the most influential people in this country and he still bashes Microsoft whenever he can. But I know, through years of working under him, that he is a crook and he tells lies better than most people. I am not so sure Sybase failed just because of Microsoft. With Mr. Kertzman at the helm, Sybase would be really lucky to be a truly successful company in the long run. It's always easy to blame outside factors for your own failures but in almost every case, the internal elements are the deciding factors. Microsoft is just an easy target for being too successful.
Government can do what it wants. But I wouldn't call it free market. Yes, government mandates can be changed, even constitution can be amended, it is just a very slow and costly process. Back to my main point. MASS government can dictate whatever file format it wants, but it is not free market because government is not any player, it has special powers to make enterprises prosper or die based on its wish while regular players in a free market don't have this power.
While Microsoft has tried to influence the government, so does every other coorporation as well as so-called non-profit organizations. It is still a level playground. And obviously Microsoft didn't do a very good job at influencing the government, they got indicted and convicted by their own government. But this is beside the point.
Government is not just any participant, it is a superpower player. In fact, government is the biggest monopoly of all. Yet some self-claimed free market proponents always look to the government to intervene. They are just give the government more and more power over time. Today, the government can dictate a file format, tomorrow it can dictate what color of clothes you should ware. Garment vendors are free to compete as long as they make only blue clothes. Don't take it as a joke as it actually happened in China in the 1970's.
My argument has been government should not dictate file format, they are not the best qualified people. And government intervention invariably leads to innovation stifling. For example, it would be very hard to add new features as every addition would require new legislature approval.
If the government tax forms or driving license applications were in a proprietary microsoft format, individual consumers would have no choice but to purchase microsoft applications at whatever price microsoft decided to charge.
Microsoft offers free viewers for all its office documents to users without Microsoft Office. Check it out at http://www.microsoft.com/office/000/viewers.asp. So at least there is no price involved in this case. Government should not dictate technical details, such as file format, it should be decided in the free market.
Using that logic, MS has had 'government protection' from MA up until this point. So don't make out like they're being unfairly dealt with here...
I don't think there is an MA law that requires Microsoft Word Document be used. It just happened naturally after Microsoft Office became widely used in the market. In the case of OpenDocument. The legislation dictates its usage before it becomes widely accepted in the market. I think there is a difference there.
Microsoft offers free office document viewers for people without Microsoft Office. You can download them at http://www.microsoft.com/office/000/viewers.asp. Check your facts before open your mouth.
Maybe to you open standards are a panacea. But to me it is not so obvious at all. But this is such a deep issue that cannot be thoroughly addressed in a couple of paragraphs. My point is that don't assume your point of view, no matter how strongly you believe in them, is automatically supported by most other people.
Proprietary format doesn't automatically mean a single company. It just means other companies may have to pay a license fee to get access to the format. Money is the main incentive for innovation in this society. Even though many people hate it, a money driven system is the best for market so far. Government dictation has been proven to be bad for market over the long run, as evidenced by the big failures of the communist economic systems.
By dictating a specific format, the government is forcing, indirectly, vendors to adopt that format. Throughout human history, choice by government bears tremendous weight on the outcome of events. Consider christianity, it became widely adopted after the endorsement of Emperor Constantine.
The open source society is trying to increase their popularity through government intervention. I just want to point out that it is hypocritical to label government intervention as free market.
Anyone can choose whatever file format they think appropriate for them. But government has much more power than individuals. If government tax forms or driver license application forms are in OpenDocument format, then individual consumers have no choice but to get OpenDocument products.
My main point is that if OpenDocument wants government protection, then don't label themselves as free market. Government dictation is not free market.
I think you twisted the definition of free market to suit your own preferences. Free market is a business concept, while open format is purely a technical one. A free market should allow businesses to compete based on their own choices instead of forcing them to adopt just one choice. Microsoft thinks using their closed format enable them to compete better. A free market should allow Microsoft to compete based on their believes and let the open format win on the open market through consumers' choosing open format products instead of government regulation.
First of all, this caveman is not just grunting by the camp fire, I am asking "what am I missing?" -- it's not nice to make fun of others for being inquisitive.
Sorry for making fun of you. Just can't help it.
Secondly, since AOL and MSN are things used primarily by the less savvy computer users, and I am a very experienced internet user and computer professional -- a more accurate analogy would be: This Firefox and Email user is wondering why the cavemen carry clubs and live in caves when there are grocery stores and houses available.
Maybe because the caveman knows that after the next world war, his descendants will survive, but yours won't.
On a similar note, a caveman has been wondering why you need firefox and email when he can learn everything he needs to know by grunting to each other next to the camp fire.
Isn't Open Source supposed to be superior to proprietary solutions? Now that Open Source projects have experienced the same delay as their proprietary counterparts in the real world, it makes me wonder whether Open Source will experience other typical problems as well, such as buggy software, costly support, security loopholes, etc. Maybe Open Source is not as great as its supporters have claimed. Maybe it is just as lame and costly as any other software products. Maybe Microsoft is better after all. I am just wondering...
But for most /.ers, this is a balanced, fair, and convincing independent study.
Analysts can only reenforce our existing beliefs, not change them.
In other words, winners are evil, losers are not. This makes wonder whether this whole evil labeling is just a byproduct of jealousy, the queen of all evil.