Even though Microsoft is coming from behind, the company can't be counted out.
No kiddin'.
Microsoft doesn't just get a finger in the pie by leveraging it's anti-competitive and illegal monopoly, it licks up most of the pie with its gargantuan tongue of bundling and integration.
You shall use Microsoft solutions, even if they are inferior and present a security hazard. Microsoft has more than just a chance in anything it does.
There are plenty of people with high positions in business that are really holding their company back.
All it takes, in most cases, is a bit of research. With the Internet, research is no hassle whatsoever. This guy obviously has no clue of what Apache is, and isn't even going to research it due to a version number.
You can't apply a one-size-fits-all approach to everything. Each seperate case should be evaluated in context. Obviously.
I would suggest going higher up, and put together something concise, positive, and polite, and ask for an evaluation of the issue. Provide proof that Apache is big, reliable, used by big companies, and something that should not be brushed aside in ignorance.
You may even find that this guy is demoted. Probably not though, seeing that somebody higher up actually gave him that position in the first place.
Isn't it in everybody's (except for Microsoft's) best interest to support an alternative browser to IE?
While the world is using IE, Microsoft has control of the Web, and control of innovation - either holding it back or forcing its own proprietary features upon us as 'standards'.
If any company achieves some success in the Internet market, Microsoft is more than likely to find some way of siphoning that success and putting the company out of business. Usually this is not via a competitive route, but is achieved by lock-in/out, bundling, etc.
If you want to maintain your success, you need to take control away from Microsoft, so that you can compete fairly. This is logical.
Once you have a large percentage of users running Mozilla based browsers, wouldn't it be detrimental for Microsoft to ostracize itself via proprietary/platform-dependent methods?
I'd have thought that software piracy was more related to Microsoft trying to force everybody to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade, so that it can maintain its income.
Each new version of Windows usually needs a complete hardware upgrade: you either run with the latest hardware or have Windows running slowly on your old hardware.
The only reason that most people need to continually buy new hardware is because Microsoft designs its operating systems to the standard spec (or what it assumes will be the standard spec at the time of its release).
Any company currently attempting to make money out of IP/patent issues seems to be admitting that it doesn't have a sustainable business model, and that it isn't confident it can adapt.
Look at SCO, look at Kodak.
Even Microsoft is desperately attempting to make money from FAT, what does this say about Microsoft?
These companies are doing no more than stifling innovation and making life difficult for everybody, just because they can't easily maintain their enormous salaries.
Things can't go on like this, it's getting ridiculous.
However, it would seem that it is an idiot who would agree to work for Microsoft; following instructions that will almost guarantee soiling of their reputation.
Here's what Ravicher says about this development, "I hope those companies that chose to take a license from Microsoft for the patent negotiated refund clauses so that they can get their money back."
But what about those who have paid SCO for licenses to use Linux? Even if they have negotiated refund clauses, it seems very unlikely that they'll get one.
If Microsoft had its way, nobody would be allowed to buy separate PC components.
Well, what if somebody puts them all together and makes a PC? Then it wouldn't have an operating system, and you'd be a pirate.
I wonder what the other software companies will do to ensure that their software isn't pirated? Maybe you'll soon only be allowed to buy a PC if you buy a copy of Photo Shop (incase you pirate that).
Actually, when you buy a house, you may soon find that you are forced to pay for cable, incase you start using a descrambler illegally.
Just imagine if Microsoft decided to add "pop-ups or [things that] sit in the background trying to crash your computer" into WMP.
At least with Real Player you can install it or not install it, according to your wishes.
Many people seem to be saying, "Gosh! Removing WMP from Windows seems so harsh! This is silly!", or words to that effect.
If Microsoft wants everybody to stream using its media formats, it will want to ensure that Windows Media Player is installed on as many computers as possible. Obviously.
The point here is that Microsoft owns Windows. Microsoft adds to Windows what it desires, and what is most beneficial to Microsoft itself. People usually use what comes installed with the operating system (IE, WMP), and once you're used to one thing you're less likely to switch (as we've seen with Internet Explorer).
Microsoft gains an unfair advantage by doing this, and there is very little competition at this level.
Microsoft finds it attrocious that people have suggested adding Real Player (and other competing apps) to Windows. Microsoft knows that doing this would take away its advantage - if it didn't, why would there be such a big issue? Ok, Microsoft may say that it would cause users more hassle by having to download WMP; but, Microsoft has also said that it doesn't understand the fuss about bundling WMP, people can still download and install Real Player easily enough. Well, in that case, why not remove WMP and let people choose what they want to install?
I expect that if WMP was removed, Microsoft would add a pop-up window as soon as you run Windows for the first time, asking you to download and install it.
The same cannot be said of Open Source apps on a Linux DISTRIBUTION. Linux is not manufactured by one company, other companies create distributions that contain various competing apps.
If Microsoft open-sourced its file formats, and ensured that it would not use any patents surrounding them to limit their use in any way, this would certainly help things.
If Microsoft got other companies to create Windows distributions in the same way as with Linux, this would also help.
I think that the fast food chains should sue the fat people suing them, for giving the fast food chains a bad image.
After all, it's not mandatory to eat fast food, and if these people have stuffed themselves silly on a diet of mostly fast food, their lack of a sound diet has maintained/increased their girth, not Ronald McDonald.
Either that or the fat people suing them should be sued for ignorance. I mean, if you digest fat, what do you think happens to it? Does the fat fairy come along and take it away? Maybe the education system should be reviewed. Maybe the US Government should sue these people for giving the US a bad image, making people think that Americans are simpletons.
It's funny how Americans can successfully sue anybody for just about anything, yet Microsoft always gets away unscathed.
Maybe somebody will announce that the use of Microsoft software has made them obese? That would probably have more success.
I've found floppies to be very unreliable, and easily become corrupt. I find that even if the floppy is fine, the drive you're putting it into is likely to trash it.
If I need a boot disk, I'll use a CD.
If I need to transport some data, I'll either do it via the network, e-mail it to myself and collect it on the other machine, or just burn it to a CD.
This has been discussed so many times. Even somebody that owns an 'ordinary' copyright on code can specify that he will only allow somebody to use that code if they run around naked for 3 hours in a New York shopping mall.
If you're desperate enough to use that persons IP, you'll pay up. Even Microsoft uses this method, it just makes you pay exorbitant amounts of cash instead.
Some people are so scared of Open Source that they'll come up with anything to resist it.
It should be pretty obvious by now that this is futile.
Microsoft claims that it's solutions offer a much lower TCO than Linux/Open Source solutions. Why is it, therefore, that Microsoft has to keep discounting its prices in order to beat Linux?
It's not really the fact that Microsoft has lowered prices to win over Linux, it's the fact that Microsoft is saying that it's already less expensive.
Microsoft's actions of price-reduction seem to prove against the 'facts' that it's constantly referencing.
Slashdot Mirror
It's quite amusing how the same people that mock the Iraqi Information Minister actually believe Microsoft.
Maybe it should be changed:
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then everbody incessantly repeats the same quote.
EXACTLY!
Patents are bad for everybody.
Why do we need to be restrictive? Tabs are great, but patenting them would be way over-the-top.
And it's silly:
Even though Microsoft is coming from behind, the company can't be counted out.
No kiddin'.
Microsoft doesn't just get a finger in the pie by leveraging it's anti-competitive and illegal monopoly, it licks up most of the pie with its gargantuan tongue of bundling and integration.
You shall use Microsoft solutions, even if they are inferior and present a security hazard. Microsoft has more than just a chance in anything it does.
Thus, it is the links in the e-mail from people you KNOW, not spam, that is the problem.
This is a good reason to not know anybody.
It gave me rheumatism.
There are plenty of people with high positions in business that are really holding their company back.
All it takes, in most cases, is a bit of research. With the Internet, research is no hassle whatsoever. This guy obviously has no clue of what Apache is, and isn't even going to research it due to a version number.
You can't apply a one-size-fits-all approach to everything. Each seperate case should be evaluated in context. Obviously.
I would suggest going higher up, and put together something concise, positive, and polite, and ask for an evaluation of the issue. Provide proof that Apache is big, reliable, used by big companies, and something that should not be brushed aside in ignorance.
You may even find that this guy is demoted. Probably not though, seeing that somebody higher up actually gave him that position in the first place.
Isn't it in everybody's (except for Microsoft's) best interest to support an alternative browser to IE?
While the world is using IE, Microsoft has control of the Web, and control of innovation - either holding it back or forcing its own proprietary features upon us as 'standards'.
If any company achieves some success in the Internet market, Microsoft is more than likely to find some way of siphoning that success and putting the company out of business. Usually this is not via a competitive route, but is achieved by lock-in/out, bundling, etc.
If you want to maintain your success, you need to take control away from Microsoft, so that you can compete fairly. This is logical.
Once you have a large percentage of users running Mozilla based browsers, wouldn't it be detrimental for Microsoft to ostracize itself via proprietary/platform-dependent methods?
I'd have thought that software piracy was more related to Microsoft trying to force everybody to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade, so that it can maintain its income.
Each new version of Windows usually needs a complete hardware upgrade: you either run with the latest hardware or have Windows running slowly on your old hardware.
The only reason that most people need to continually buy new hardware is because Microsoft designs its operating systems to the standard spec (or what it assumes will be the standard spec at the time of its release).
When do we get to buy nukes?
Isn't it also renowned for attacking penguins?
Any company currently attempting to make money out of IP/patent issues seems to be admitting that it doesn't have a sustainable business model, and that it isn't confident it can adapt.
Look at SCO, look at Kodak.
Even Microsoft is desperately attempting to make money from FAT, what does this say about Microsoft?
These companies are doing no more than stifling innovation and making life difficult for everybody, just because they can't easily maintain their enormous salaries.
Things can't go on like this, it's getting ridiculous.
MS does not hire idiots to write their code
Agreed.
However, it would seem that it is an idiot who would agree to work for Microsoft; following instructions that will almost guarantee soiling of their reputation.
I drink tea.
Does this mean that the cow population has dramatically decreased?
Here's what Ravicher says about this development, "I hope those companies that chose to take a license from Microsoft for the patent negotiated refund clauses so that they can get their money back."
But what about those who have paid SCO for licenses to use Linux? Even if they have negotiated refund clauses, it seems very unlikely that they'll get one.
If Microsoft had its way, nobody would be allowed to buy separate PC components.
Well, what if somebody puts them all together and makes a PC? Then it wouldn't have an operating system, and you'd be a pirate.
I wonder what the other software companies will do to ensure that their software isn't pirated? Maybe you'll soon only be allowed to buy a PC if you buy a copy of Photo Shop (incase you pirate that).
Actually, when you buy a house, you may soon find that you are forced to pay for cable, incase you start using a descrambler illegally.
Man, things could really get expensive here!
Just imagine if Microsoft decided to add "pop-ups or [things that] sit in the background trying to crash your computer" into WMP. At least with Real Player you can install it or not install it, according to your wishes.
Many people seem to be saying, "Gosh! Removing WMP from Windows seems so harsh! This is silly!", or words to that effect.
If Microsoft wants everybody to stream using its media formats, it will want to ensure that Windows Media Player is installed on as many computers as possible. Obviously.
The point here is that Microsoft owns Windows. Microsoft adds to Windows what it desires, and what is most beneficial to Microsoft itself. People usually use what comes installed with the operating system (IE, WMP), and once you're used to one thing you're less likely to switch (as we've seen with Internet Explorer).
Microsoft gains an unfair advantage by doing this, and there is very little competition at this level.
Microsoft finds it attrocious that people have suggested adding Real Player (and other competing apps) to Windows. Microsoft knows that doing this would take away its advantage - if it didn't, why would there be such a big issue? Ok, Microsoft may say that it would cause users more hassle by having to download WMP; but, Microsoft has also said that it doesn't understand the fuss about bundling WMP, people can still download and install Real Player easily enough. Well, in that case, why not remove WMP and let people choose what they want to install?
I expect that if WMP was removed, Microsoft would add a pop-up window as soon as you run Windows for the first time, asking you to download and install it.
The same cannot be said of Open Source apps on a Linux DISTRIBUTION. Linux is not manufactured by one company, other companies create distributions that contain various competing apps.
If Microsoft open-sourced its file formats, and ensured that it would not use any patents surrounding them to limit their use in any way, this would certainly help things.
If Microsoft got other companies to create Windows distributions in the same way as with Linux, this would also help.
Software choice?
Was this study funded by Microsoft?
Is Microsoft going to use this in its Get The Facts campaign?
Sorry, I couldn't be bothered to RTFA.
I think that the fast food chains should sue the fat people suing them, for giving the fast food chains a bad image.
After all, it's not mandatory to eat fast food, and if these people have stuffed themselves silly on a diet of mostly fast food, their lack of a sound diet has maintained/increased their girth, not Ronald McDonald.
Either that or the fat people suing them should be sued for ignorance. I mean, if you digest fat, what do you think happens to it? Does the fat fairy come along and take it away? Maybe the education system should be reviewed. Maybe the US Government should sue these people for giving the US a bad image, making people think that Americans are simpletons.
It's funny how Americans can successfully sue anybody for just about anything, yet Microsoft always gets away unscathed.
Maybe somebody will announce that the use of Microsoft software has made them obese? That would probably have more success.
I've found floppies to be very unreliable, and easily become corrupt. I find that even if the floppy is fine, the drive you're putting it into is likely to trash it.
If I need a boot disk, I'll use a CD.
If I need to transport some data, I'll either do it via the network, e-mail it to myself and collect it on the other machine, or just burn it to a CD.
I haven't used a floppy for a long time.
This has been discussed so many times. Even somebody that owns an 'ordinary' copyright on code can specify that he will only allow somebody to use that code if they run around naked for 3 hours in a New York shopping mall.
If you're desperate enough to use that persons IP, you'll pay up. Even Microsoft uses this method, it just makes you pay exorbitant amounts of cash instead.
Some people are so scared of Open Source that they'll come up with anything to resist it.
It should be pretty obvious by now that this is futile.
"One IBM employee in the company's internal technology department characterized the decision as routine."
I'd say.
Most of Microsoft's patches need fixing before you install them.
Anyway, what's wrong with pointing out how buggy even Microsoft's patches are? Especially when Microsoft is claiming to be the king of security.
Microsoft claims that it's solutions offer a much lower TCO than Linux/Open Source solutions. Why is it, therefore, that Microsoft has to keep discounting its prices in order to beat Linux?
It's not really the fact that Microsoft has lowered prices to win over Linux, it's the fact that Microsoft is saying that it's already less expensive.
Microsoft's actions of price-reduction seem to prove against the 'facts' that it's constantly referencing.