I find it amusing that Microsoft reps can't handle the fact that Linux comes BUNDLED - LEGALLY - with TONS of applications and utilities.
Me too.
If Microsoft wants an opportunity to have its 'middleware' bundled with its operating system, Microsoft should stop directly producing CDs for end-users, and have other companies produce Windows distributions.
The companies putting together the distributions could bundle whatever apps with the product they liked.
This would promote fair competition, and would also get around the problem of Microsoft bundling only its own apps with its operating system.
Of course, doing this would mean that Microsoft would have to stop 'integrating' its middleware so deeply into its operating system, putting a stop to the dependence of the operating system on Microsoft-specific middleware.
I'm sure that Microsoft wouldn't want to be seen as anti-competitive.
The issue with bundling is that Microsoft gains an advantage if software is included with the operating system. Most people will use it, not even considering downloading an alternative.
Concerning Microsoft selling middleware, this also presents Microsoft with an advantage.
Microsoft can build components into the operating system to enable its middleware products to integrate better together. In fact, Microsoft can make any changes into the operating system to benefit its products over the competition in any way it likes.
Microsoft is now proclaiming the benefits of its products being tightly integrated (like no other products can offer), and how this provides a better service for people. Microsoft is admitting by this that it has an unfair advantage.
When Microsoft gains an advantage, it locks competition out.
And another thing, if Microsoft is selling the software that protects against the holes in its operating system, it would be beneficial for Microsoft to ensure that Windows is always buggy in order to maintain a cash flow from this market.
It's all down to Microsoft being anti-competitive, and maintaining an illegal monopoly.
Having Microsoft 'compete' in any market isn't a problem, it's the fact that Microsoft doesn't like to compete, and uses its illegal monopoly to gain an unfair advantage which is the problem.
Open Source software can not be made into a profitable business model.
Probably not, if you stick with conventional methods. But then again, will the conventional methods remain viable?
Microsoft has discovered that people are becoming less and less willing to continually pay for upgrades to their operating system every couple of years or so.
Why are so many businesses interested in Intellectual Property? Because the conventional methods of keeping the cash rollin' in are not doing the business.
Look at how Microsoft has to continually charge for upgrades to its operating system to maintain its cash flow. Most of the time Microsoft has been adding 'features' to make people think they're getting a good deal (not necessarily because people would benefit from them). Many of these 'features' are the reason why there's so many security issues.
There's more than one way to make money, any you don't have to screw end-users to make it.
One Microsoft exec described the anti-Microsoft feelings as a 'jihad.'
I saw this recently, and the first thing I thought of was Microsoft:
"Natrually, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
-- Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall at the Nuremberg Trials after WWII
It doesn't seem to work with software though.
Look at Microsoft trying to tell everybody that Open Source is a cancer, un-American, attacking the economy, etc.
Let's hope that the people won't do the bidding of the 'leader' here.
I've installed Firefox for a few people who have had problems with IE. They're impressed at how much better it performs, and how the weird things that plagued them no longer occur.
I've personally found that, during the past year or so, the number of sites that are incompatible with Mozilla have decreased dramatically.
Give Mozilla the widespread usage (which is like industrial-strength beta-testing) that Internet Explorer has and see how many holes are blown open in it.
The thing is, the holes are already there. They're not blown into the product, they're discovered.
IE has so many holes because Microsoft has developed it with sloppy code. There have been so many holes discovered in IE that it's shocking, it's a joke.
Nothing is perfect, nobody is suggesting that Open Source products are impenetrable. The point is that Microsoft has never been interested in creating secure code before now, it had no competition to make it work for its money and never even perceived there to be a problem in this area (Bill didn't even think the Internet was going anywhere). Windows was not developed with security in mind (as Microsoft itself stated).
This is a good example of why everybody should be embracing open standards rather than using proprietary methods.
In the end you could be stuck using insecure software because you're locked in.
It's funny how some people just deny the existance of lock-in. When you have people using insecure software because they've made use of proprietary/closed methods, surely it's plain to see the truth?
If Microsoft is purely out to please its customers, why is it only recently that the company has shown any consideration for its customers?
As far as the evidence suggests, Microsoft didn't give a damn about its customers until they started getting frustrated with security and stability issues (the same time when Linux was getting a lot of press due to its increased security and stability).
Look at Win98 compared to Win95, it was such a trivial upgrade. Win98 first edition was terrible, Microsoft released a second edition - and charged those using the first edition to upgrade to the second edition! That's like charging for a bug fix.
Then look at WinME. Microsoft was pushing out trash every couple of years (although Win98 SE was released about one year before WinME). Did Microsoft give a damn about customer satisfaction? It seems that Microsoft was more concerned with lining its pockets and maintaining its cash flow.
Only since people have been talking about using Linux as an alternative, and how poor Windows was, has Microsoft really been putting any work into its operating system.
Customers were only satisfied with Windows because they didn't see any alternative. Linux revealed Windows for the buggy piece of trash that it is, Microsoft then had to get off it's backside and get to work in order to keep customers satisfied.
It's good for Microsoft's customers, but essentially it's good for Microsoft itself.
What company would want to provoke its customers into switching to the competition?
It's nice to see that they don't want to leave their customers out in the cold.
I agree, it's nice to see it; however, I wouldn't see it as Microsoft really caring about the wellbeing of its customers.
This move is almost mandatory for Microsoft.
Before Microsoft had any serious compeition it would never have considered a move like this.
Even the bug fix for Win98 (i.e. Win98 Second Edition) was a chargeable upgrade from Win98 First Edition. I very much doubt Microsoft would try something like that now.
I'm not excusing some of the pathetic flames that Fred received, but I do understand the disbelief. I'm saying that Fred should have known that his article would encourage disbelief, and more than likely flames. He certainly didn't discourage it!
This isn't the first time it's happened to Fred, and it won't be the last time. He should know by now what to expect when you don't paint the full picture.
If Fred had provided all of the details in the first place, nobody would have had a good reason to question his point.
I can't believe that he finds it strange that the Linux community is scepticle when anybody knocks Linux in any way. It's this that makes me feel he's milking the situation for all its worth.
Most anti-Linux material seems to be based on FUD, analysts are only providing selective facts and have been flamed for not painting the full picture. Unless Fred has been living in a dream world for the past few months, he should have anticipated this.
It seems to me as if Fred wrote the article knowing that he'd provoke the Linux community.
He seems amazed that people could react in this way:
Many readers thought I was trying to hide something; or was secretly trying to stack the deck against Linux; or that I had some other evil motivation in not detailing the hardware.
some readers from the Linux community are deeply suspicious of criticism of Linux.
I find it hard to believe that an experienced writer such as Fred Langa would express disbelief at the reaction he received.
Look at all of the FUD that's spread about Linux, the lies, the half-truths, the selective analysis, the ignorant writers expressing their opinions based on hear-say. Surely Fred is aware of the mass of tripe written about Linux, how can he not understand why the Linux community is suspicious?
And if he knew of this, why didn't he provide more details? Surely he should have anticipated the questions that would be asked?
Maybe Fred acts the way he does for one of the following reasons:
1) Fred is biased against Linux/Open Source and wants to make the Linux community look bad. 2) Fred loves to cause discord in general. 3) Fred isn't very perceptive or just doesn't think. 4) Fred is pro-Linux and attempts to make a big deal of certain issues in the hope that they'll be resolved faster.
I don't know, I don't care. But to act amazed at the reaction he got seems like a sham, it would appear that it's just what Fred wanted, especially as he wrote up a whole new article focused on the angry, suspicious, Linux community that won't have anything negative said about their OS!
To run Windows, you don't need a tech savvy administrator
Darn right!
and he will be much, much cheaper.
Cheaper to hire, but he'll more than likely cost the company a packet in the long run, like so many Windows administrators that neglected to apply (let alone test) the latest Windows patches. When the network is down, a non-savvy administrator would more than likely have considerably more trouble getting it up again.
Downtime costs money, but so many people don't seem interested in changing their ways to save it. One has to wonder if TCO is anything worth bothering about anyway, especially with the laid-back approach many companies take to securing their systems.
An administrator like this will more than likely help your company remain vulnerable to all of the latest worms and virii, and probably has the server(s) running at a minimal rate of efficiency, not to mention that in a state of crisis such an administrator would probaby have to call somebody out to help them (which again costs money).
Of course those who actually believed that are now paying the price.
And are apparently 'happy' to continue on their reckless paths.
Slashdot Mirror
Too right.
But we're too cunning to be discovered.
I find it amusing that Microsoft reps can't handle the fact that Linux comes BUNDLED - LEGALLY - with TONS of applications and utilities.
Me too.
If Microsoft wants an opportunity to have its 'middleware' bundled with its operating system, Microsoft should stop directly producing CDs for end-users, and have other companies produce Windows distributions.
The companies putting together the distributions could bundle whatever apps with the product they liked.
This would promote fair competition, and would also get around the problem of Microsoft bundling only its own apps with its operating system.
Of course, doing this would mean that Microsoft would have to stop 'integrating' its middleware so deeply into its operating system, putting a stop to the dependence of the operating system on Microsoft-specific middleware. I'm sure that Microsoft wouldn't want to be seen as anti-competitive.
Man, I can't believe that fortune cookie lied.
Ah well, that's the last time I quote one of those.
The issue with bundling is that Microsoft gains an advantage if software is included with the operating system. Most people will use it, not even considering downloading an alternative.
Concerning Microsoft selling middleware, this also presents Microsoft with an advantage.
Microsoft can build components into the operating system to enable its middleware products to integrate better together. In fact, Microsoft can make any changes into the operating system to benefit its products over the competition in any way it likes.
Microsoft is now proclaiming the benefits of its products being tightly integrated (like no other products can offer), and how this provides a better service for people. Microsoft is admitting by this that it has an unfair advantage.
When Microsoft gains an advantage, it locks competition out.
And another thing, if Microsoft is selling the software that protects against the holes in its operating system, it would be beneficial for Microsoft to ensure that Windows is always buggy in order to maintain a cash flow from this market.
It's all down to Microsoft being anti-competitive, and maintaining an illegal monopoly.
Having Microsoft 'compete' in any market isn't a problem, it's the fact that Microsoft doesn't like to compete, and uses its illegal monopoly to gain an unfair advantage which is the problem.
Open Source software can not be made into a profitable business model.
Probably not, if you stick with conventional methods. But then again, will the conventional methods remain viable?
Microsoft has discovered that people are becoming less and less willing to continually pay for upgrades to their operating system every couple of years or so.
Why are so many businesses interested in Intellectual Property? Because the conventional methods of keeping the cash rollin' in are not doing the business.
Look at how Microsoft has to continually charge for upgrades to its operating system to maintain its cash flow. Most of the time Microsoft has been adding 'features' to make people think they're getting a good deal (not necessarily because people would benefit from them). Many of these 'features' are the reason why there's so many security issues.
There's more than one way to make money, any you don't have to screw end-users to make it.
I didn't say that there wouldn't be an error, I just suggested getting Firefox 0.9.
;)
Go get Firefox 0.9:
http://mozilla.org/
You won't be sorry.
Anything's better than a turd
That's being a little generous to IE, don't you think?
I would have already applied the patch by clicking "Windows Update"
You actually apply those things? That's like OS Russian Roulette!
One Microsoft exec described the anti-Microsoft feelings as a 'jihad.'
I saw this recently, and the first thing I thought of was Microsoft:
"Natrually, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
-- Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall at the Nuremberg Trials after WWII
It doesn't seem to work with software though.
Look at Microsoft trying to tell everybody that Open Source is a cancer, un-American, attacking the economy, etc.
Let's hope that the people won't do the bidding of the 'leader' here.
Maybe SCO will buy McDonald's and call it McBride's.
this makes McDonalds a target for an SCO lawsuit
With more than 30,000 restaurants around the globe and more than 1,200 in Germany alone, McDonald's obviously doesn't give a damn.
I have Mandrake 10 on a 1.2Ghz box, 256Mb of RAM, and it's flying.
I find Mandrake 10 is much faster than 9.2. You won't get that kind of thing from Windows!
I've installed Firefox for a few people who have had problems with IE. They're impressed at how much better it performs, and how the weird things that plagued them no longer occur.
I've personally found that, during the past year or so, the number of sites that are incompatible with Mozilla have decreased dramatically.
Give Mozilla the widespread usage (which is like industrial-strength beta-testing) that Internet Explorer has and see how many holes are blown open in it.
The thing is, the holes are already there. They're not blown into the product, they're discovered.
IE has so many holes because Microsoft has developed it with sloppy code. There have been so many holes discovered in IE that it's shocking, it's a joke.
Nothing is perfect, nobody is suggesting that Open Source products are impenetrable. The point is that Microsoft has never been interested in creating secure code before now, it had no competition to make it work for its money and never even perceived there to be a problem in this area (Bill didn't even think the Internet was going anywhere). Windows was not developed with security in mind (as Microsoft itself stated).
This is a good example of why everybody should be embracing open standards rather than using proprietary methods.
In the end you could be stuck using insecure software because you're locked in.
It's funny how some people just deny the existance of lock-in. When you have people using insecure software because they've made use of proprietary/closed methods, surely it's plain to see the truth?
why dont you go back to whacking owls I never stopped. I can whack owls about and type at the same time.
I wonder if the Martians will think they're some kind of strange tortoise, and put them away in a cardboard box?
If Microsoft is purely out to please its customers, why is it only recently that the company has shown any consideration for its customers?
As far as the evidence suggests, Microsoft didn't give a damn about its customers until they started getting frustrated with security and stability issues (the same time when Linux was getting a lot of press due to its increased security and stability).
Look at Win98 compared to Win95, it was such a trivial upgrade. Win98 first edition was terrible, Microsoft released a second edition - and charged those using the first edition to upgrade to the second edition! That's like charging for a bug fix.
Then look at WinME. Microsoft was pushing out trash every couple of years (although Win98 SE was released about one year before WinME). Did Microsoft give a damn about customer satisfaction? It seems that Microsoft was more concerned with lining its pockets and maintaining its cash flow.
Only since people have been talking about using Linux as an alternative, and how poor Windows was, has Microsoft really been putting any work into its operating system.
Customers were only satisfied with Windows because they didn't see any alternative. Linux revealed Windows for the buggy piece of trash that it is, Microsoft then had to get off it's backside and get to work in order to keep customers satisfied.
I personally find spoons far more scary.
Good for Microsoft.
Well said.
It's good for Microsoft's customers, but essentially it's good for Microsoft itself.
What company would want to provoke its customers into switching to the competition?
It's nice to see that they don't want to leave their customers out in the cold.
I agree, it's nice to see it; however, I wouldn't see it as Microsoft really caring about the wellbeing of its customers.
This move is almost mandatory for Microsoft.
Before Microsoft had any serious compeition it would never have considered a move like this.
Even the bug fix for Win98 (i.e. Win98 Second Edition) was a chargeable upgrade from Win98 First Edition. I very much doubt Microsoft would try something like that now.
Competition does strange things.
Nice comparison. Funny, yet its seriousness still peeks through.
I think it's safe to say that this world is getting dumber and dumber.
'Patent' will soon be a dirty word... if it's not already.
I'm not excusing some of the pathetic flames that Fred received, but I do understand the disbelief. I'm saying that Fred should have known that his article would encourage disbelief, and more than likely flames. He certainly didn't discourage it!
This isn't the first time it's happened to Fred, and it won't be the last time. He should know by now what to expect when you don't paint the full picture.
If Fred had provided all of the details in the first place, nobody would have had a good reason to question his point.
I can't believe that he finds it strange that the Linux community is scepticle when anybody knocks Linux in any way. It's this that makes me feel he's milking the situation for all its worth.
Most anti-Linux material seems to be based on FUD, analysts are only providing selective facts and have been flamed for not painting the full picture. Unless Fred has been living in a dream world for the past few months, he should have anticipated this.
Modding this as a troll doesn't change the facts.
It seems to me as if Fred wrote the article knowing that he'd provoke the Linux community.
He seems amazed that people could react in this way:
Many readers thought I was trying to hide something; or was secretly trying to stack the deck against Linux; or that I had some other evil motivation in not detailing the hardware.
some readers from the Linux community are deeply suspicious of criticism of Linux.
I find it hard to believe that an experienced writer such as Fred Langa would express disbelief at the reaction he received.
Look at all of the FUD that's spread about Linux, the lies, the half-truths, the selective analysis, the ignorant writers expressing their opinions based on hear-say. Surely Fred is aware of the mass of tripe written about Linux, how can he not understand why the Linux community is suspicious?
And if he knew of this, why didn't he provide more details? Surely he should have anticipated the questions that would be asked?
Maybe Fred acts the way he does for one of the following reasons:
1) Fred is biased against Linux/Open Source and wants to make the Linux community look bad.
2) Fred loves to cause discord in general.
3) Fred isn't very perceptive or just doesn't think.
4) Fred is pro-Linux and attempts to make a big deal of certain issues in the hope that they'll be resolved faster.
I don't know, I don't care. But to act amazed at the reaction he got seems like a sham, it would appear that it's just what Fred wanted, especially as he wrote up a whole new article focused on the angry, suspicious, Linux community that won't have anything negative said about their OS!
To run Windows, you don't need a tech savvy administrator
Darn right!
and he will be much, much cheaper.
Cheaper to hire, but he'll more than likely cost the company a packet in the long run, like so many Windows administrators that neglected to apply (let alone test) the latest Windows patches. When the network is down, a non-savvy administrator would more than likely have considerably more trouble getting it up again.
Downtime costs money, but so many people don't seem interested in changing their ways to save it. One has to wonder if TCO is anything worth bothering about anyway, especially with the laid-back approach many companies take to securing their systems.
An administrator like this will more than likely help your company remain vulnerable to all of the latest worms and virii, and probably has the server(s) running at a minimal rate of efficiency, not to mention that in a state of crisis such an administrator would probaby have to call somebody out to help them (which again costs money).
Of course those who actually believed that are now paying the price.
And are apparently 'happy' to continue on their reckless paths.
Shocking behavior.