I have talked with many a so called IT Professional, and most of them are clueless about the simplest things.
Some of them get paid loads, have all kinds of certifications, and yet they need to ask you how to configure TCP/IP for use with a freakin' router!
One moron stated that he had this or that certification, and that he was a pro, yet he complained when I used the generic term 'browser'. He asked why I was using such 'technical' words! Obviously it's really a 'Web page program', or just 'Internet Explorer'.
I think, from my experience, that anybody could manage to get a job with a title of 'IT Pro'. All you need to do is act as if you know what you're doing, and then get other people to do your work for you.
The whole point with the Web browser issue is that Microsoft doesn't adhere to standards. IE supports whatever ideas Microsoft wants to put into it. Ok, this doesn't sound bad in any way, but when you have a monopoly and everything that you include in your browser will be accepted 'as standard', yes it is bad. Most sites have been designed for IE only, screw the rest (screw standards). Microsoft isn't SCO, it doesn't make everything so blatantly obvious. It maintains its leadership by manipulation.
Concerning Windows Media Player, it was never an issue before because streaming media wasn't such a popular/lucrative business. Now that streaming media is big, why can't Microsoft use open media formats rather than its own? The answer is obviously because it wants everybody to use its media format and make money (by getting people to stream their content in WMP format). Again, this isn't bad, it's business, but by bundling WMP with Windows its going to be accepted 'as standard' - especially with Microsoft working so hard to infiltrate the media market.
The biggest note of amusement to this whole case is that it means that MS isn't allowed to do anything to improve their OS.
This is why Microsoft should have been split up in the first place. Why does Windows come with the additional apps that it comes with, why not add something like Realplayer or other messaging clients? The answer is, because Windows is made by Microsoft, and Microsoft will add its own additional apps in preference to those of another company. If Microsoft didn't develop anything other than Windows as a bare-bones OS, Windows would ship with Realplayer, Firefox, etc.
If you have Windows distributions, as I suggested, people could buy Windows with plenty of different apps included (such as Firebird instead of IE for example). This would also encourage people to develop their Websites so that the most popular browsers can display them correctly.
They're probably going to get sued for making it easy to open up a zip file.
If Microsoft was to invent a proprietary compression algorithm and ship its own compression utility that made use of this with Windows, then Microsoft could face getting sued. It's all about shutting out competition, and using your monopoly to get things accepted as standard.
Microsoft wants to be in control, not by being a leader, but by manipulating the situation so that it gets in the lead and maintains its leadership.
How does web browsing help MS maintain their monopoly? How does IE keep people using Windows over MacOS or Linux? How does it lock people into Windows?
What reason do you think that some Web pages don't display correctly in the most innovative browsers available (when IE has stood still for years)?
Microsoft uses not only proprietary (non-standard) tags, but IE itself has an auto-correction facility that causes pages with errors to display correctly even though they're not written correctly.
This means that even though Firefox/Mozilla and Opera are standards compliant, because IE disregards standards and is the default browser, everybody codes for IE and doesn't recognize mistakes in the code because IE displays the pages correctly anyway.
How does WMP help MS maintain their monopoly? How does WMP keep people using Windows over MacOS or Linux? How does it lock people into Windows (recall that MS does liscense their video codecs/algorithms)?
WMP is the default media player in Windows, most people that produce streaming media will choose WMP formats to stream their media because they know that most users have access to this format. This gives WMP an advantage over other media players. I assume, as you're asking this question, that you haven't been keeping up with the EU case?
The problem is that Microsoft, the company that makes the OS, is the same company that makes the apps bundled with the OS.
Microsoft already has a monopoly with its operating system, anything that comes bundled with it is almost guaranteed to be accepted as 'standard'. If Microsoft is going to bundle apps with Windows, why not (in a competitive manner) add alternatives to its own apps? But then again, should this be the answer?
Maybe we should be thinking "Should the company that creates the operating system be allowed to distribute it with its own pre-selected apps at all?"
I keep saying that Microsoft should not be able to distribute a version of Windows purely with its own apps, but that Microsoft should provide a 'bare-bones' version of Windows and other companies should produce 'distributions' of Windows for the end-user. This would enable people to buy a version of Windows that contains Firefox instead of IE, or maybe Opera, Firefox and IE too. This would really split up Microsoft without going as far as litterally splitting up the company.
Microsoft can't be trusted. Windows 'distributions' would be the best way around this.
What if Microsoft HAD 0 software.
Would you have to go out and buy your own calc.exe, notepad.exe, browser.exe, program-to-view-extension.exe, etc..
If Microsoft wasn't able to sell Windows directly then you wouldn't be able to buy Windows in this condition. If you had distribution providers, they would select which apps to install, maybe Microsoft apps, maybe replacement apps, maybe both. The fact is, you would still have the apps with which to perform your usual tasks.
How would you download software from the internet? if Microsoft doesnt HAVE any (out of the box) software to access the internet?
Again, the distribution providers would add whatever browser(s) they decided to. You could have a Windows distro which sets Firefox as the default browser for example, but also has IE installed for those who are monopoly-friendly. Maybe you'd have Firefox, IE and Opera. It would be up to the distro provider.
Linux is open source, Windows is not.
This is no reason why Windows can't be sold as distributions. Distributors would have to obtain basic Windows licenses and create their own distro CDs, why should this have anything to do with source code? 'Distribution' doesn't mean Open Source CD which anybody can copy.
You mean like 3.1, 95, 98, ME, NT, 2k, XP, etc.
The various Windows versions are 'versions', not 'distributions'. The problem comes where Microsoft is in control of what goes on its CDs, and the fact that it has a monopoly whereby people will mostly only buy Windows, and therefore will use whatever comes pre-installed with it. With a distribution, Microsoft would not be in control of which third-party apps were available for end-users.
Microsoft should not be allowed to sell Windows with any additional apps whatsoever.
With Linux you have different distributions, why can't Windows work on the same principle?
You don't get Mandrake saying "Oh, we're not going to put into our distro, why should we put other people's apps in our distro's?"
The whole point of distributions is that you get loads of apps from loads of developers, and you get to select exactly what you want from the best available apps.
Having Windows distributions is the only way I see of overcoming Microsoft's anti-competitive monopoly.
I mean that the EU seems to be happy to let everybody do as they please, with a kind of "If it feels right, do it" attitude. It's almost like creating a law that encourages 'lawless' behavior, if you know what I mean.
It could start off with a couple of companies waging war against each other, the next thing you know everybody is taking everybody elses stuff, people are eating each other, and the economy is crumbling. Greed prevails. Everything is brought to a stand-still. Politicians are burnt at the stake. Albatrosses are beheaded. That type of thing.
If only the Sex Pistols had named their song "Chaos in the UK", then I probably wouldn't even have posted this in the first place, and we'd all be much happier.
I don't know about fancy words making my point stronger, I was just thinking about the Sex Pistols.
I didn't say that these laws have produced anarchy, but that the EU seems to be welcoming it.
If you have a law that almost beckons people to cause chaos, surely this goes against laws and government? What will the end result be? Anarchy perhaps? This was my point.
Fancy words. Honestly, what do you think I am? Somebody that likes to show off their superiority?
It actually sounds as if the EU is welcoming anarchy.
I accuse Microsoft of copyright infringement, I'm sure that there must be a whole pile of GPL code hacked into Windows. Can I go ransack all of the Microsoft offices in Europe now?
Well, if you're going to trust Microsoft, you should expect to lose out. It's one of the hard lessons in life.
Three-year contracts? Who is supposed to benefit from this, the end-user or Microsoft? Considering these contracts were brought out at a time where cash was tight you shouldn't really have to think too hard about that.
Since when has Microsoft been concerned about end-users? The only times I've seen this occurrance is when they're about to jump ship.
If you believe Microsoft you'll believe anything. Well, anything except the truth.
It's like somebody getting in a car without wheels and wondering why it won't move. You have to have some knowledge of how a computer works or you'll probably end up going nowhere.
Why would you want to give Microsoft credit for WinXP?
Would you give a terrorist credit for giving up terrorism because he's been caught and has a gun pointed at his head?
Microsoft produced highly insecure, highly flawed, crappy software for years. Only when people were starting to get annoyed with the security and stability issues with Windows, and Linux was getting noticed for being more stable and secure did Microsoft pull its finger out and consider producing secure/stable software.
Of course, Microsoft would deny that Linux/Open Source had anything to do with it. The fact is, without any competition, Microsoft can do whatever it likes, what else would people turn to?
"Darl McBride... checks into hotels under assumed names. An armed body guard protected him at Harvard Law School when he gave a speech last month."
So, he uses different names and he has a firewall. Why doesn't he use a proxy, that way nobody would know where he was but he could still spread his verbal turd throughout the world. And if anybody attempted a denial of service attack they'd only get the proxy.
Don't allow Microsoft to bundle any of its additional apps with Windows, but give other select distributors rights to bundle software in a Windows package.
You could then have those other distributors offering Windows with multiple browsers, e-mail clients, media players, etc.
I know that people will shriek "ARRGH! No! We don't want to have to choose from mass piles of media players, etc."
But what is the alternative? Microsoft forcing you to use the 'default' Microsoft software? Software which has file formats/codecs controlled by a convicted monopolist?
We already know that Microsoft is certainly not trustworthy. Not even trustworthy enough to distribute its own operating system. Damn, you can't even trust its damn patches.
Slashdot Mirror
I have talked with many a so called IT Professional, and most of them are clueless about the simplest things.
Some of them get paid loads, have all kinds of certifications, and yet they need to ask you how to configure TCP/IP for use with a freakin' router!
One moron stated that he had this or that certification, and that he was a pro, yet he complained when I used the generic term 'browser'. He asked why I was using such 'technical' words! Obviously it's really a 'Web page program', or just 'Internet Explorer'.
I think, from my experience, that anybody could manage to get a job with a title of 'IT Pro'. All you need to do is act as if you know what you're doing, and then get other people to do your work for you.
The whole point with the Web browser issue is that Microsoft doesn't adhere to standards. IE supports whatever ideas Microsoft wants to put into it. Ok, this doesn't sound bad in any way, but when you have a monopoly and everything that you include in your browser will be accepted 'as standard', yes it is bad. Most sites have been designed for IE only, screw the rest (screw standards). Microsoft isn't SCO, it doesn't make everything so blatantly obvious. It maintains its leadership by manipulation.
Concerning Windows Media Player, it was never an issue before because streaming media wasn't such a popular/lucrative business. Now that streaming media is big, why can't Microsoft use open media formats rather than its own? The answer is obviously because it wants everybody to use its media format and make money (by getting people to stream their content in WMP format). Again, this isn't bad, it's business, but by bundling WMP with Windows its going to be accepted 'as standard' - especially with Microsoft working so hard to infiltrate the media market.
The biggest note of amusement to this whole case is that it means that MS isn't allowed to do anything to improve their OS.
This is why Microsoft should have been split up in the first place. Why does Windows come with the additional apps that it comes with, why not add something like Realplayer or other messaging clients? The answer is, because Windows is made by Microsoft, and Microsoft will add its own additional apps in preference to those of another company. If Microsoft didn't develop anything other than Windows as a bare-bones OS, Windows would ship with Realplayer, Firefox, etc.
If you have Windows distributions, as I suggested, people could buy Windows with plenty of different apps included (such as Firebird instead of IE for example). This would also encourage people to develop their Websites so that the most popular browsers can display them correctly.
They're probably going to get sued for making it easy to open up a zip file.
If Microsoft was to invent a proprietary compression algorithm and ship its own compression utility that made use of this with Windows, then Microsoft could face getting sued. It's all about shutting out competition, and using your monopoly to get things accepted as standard.
Microsoft wants to be in control, not by being a leader, but by manipulating the situation so that it gets in the lead and maintains its leadership.
How does web browsing help MS maintain their monopoly? How does IE keep people using Windows over MacOS or Linux? How does it lock people into Windows?
What reason do you think that some Web pages don't display correctly in the most innovative browsers available (when IE has stood still for years)?
Microsoft uses not only proprietary (non-standard) tags, but IE itself has an auto-correction facility that causes pages with errors to display correctly even though they're not written correctly.
This means that even though Firefox/Mozilla and Opera are standards compliant, because IE disregards standards and is the default browser, everybody codes for IE and doesn't recognize mistakes in the code because IE displays the pages correctly anyway.
How does WMP help MS maintain their monopoly? How does WMP keep people using Windows over MacOS or Linux? How does it lock people into Windows (recall that MS does liscense their video codecs/algorithms)?
WMP is the default media player in Windows, most people that produce streaming media will choose WMP formats to stream their media because they know that most users have access to this format. This gives WMP an advantage over other media players. I assume, as you're asking this question, that you haven't been keeping up with the EU case?
Can Microsoft maintain its monopoly with calc.exe, notepad.exe, explorer.exe, regedit.exe or winhelp.exe?
I don't think so.
Can Microsoft maintain its monopoly with IE and WMP? Of course it can.
This is about shutting others out via proprietary protocols and APIs, or locking people in.
You don't need a calculator app to be compatible with anybody elses app, do you?
The problem is that Microsoft, the company that makes the OS, is the same company that makes the apps bundled with the OS.
Microsoft already has a monopoly with its operating system, anything that comes bundled with it is almost guaranteed to be accepted as 'standard'. If Microsoft is going to bundle apps with Windows, why not (in a competitive manner) add alternatives to its own apps? But then again, should this be the answer?
Maybe we should be thinking "Should the company that creates the operating system be allowed to distribute it with its own pre-selected apps at all?"
I keep saying that Microsoft should not be able to distribute a version of Windows purely with its own apps, but that Microsoft should provide a 'bare-bones' version of Windows and other companies should produce 'distributions' of Windows for the end-user. This would enable people to buy a version of Windows that contains Firefox instead of IE, or maybe Opera, Firefox and IE too. This would really split up Microsoft without going as far as litterally splitting up the company.
Microsoft can't be trusted. Windows 'distributions' would be the best way around this.
Hmm... I don't think you're with me here.
What if Microsoft HAD 0 software. Would you have to go out and buy your own calc.exe, notepad.exe, browser.exe, program-to-view-extension.exe, etc..
If Microsoft wasn't able to sell Windows directly then you wouldn't be able to buy Windows in this condition. If you had distribution providers, they would select which apps to install, maybe Microsoft apps, maybe replacement apps, maybe both. The fact is, you would still have the apps with which to perform your usual tasks.
How would you download software from the internet? if Microsoft doesnt HAVE any (out of the box) software to access the internet?
Again, the distribution providers would add whatever browser(s) they decided to. You could have a Windows distro which sets Firefox as the default browser for example, but also has IE installed for those who are monopoly-friendly. Maybe you'd have Firefox, IE and Opera. It would be up to the distro provider.
Linux is open source, Windows is not.
This is no reason why Windows can't be sold as distributions. Distributors would have to obtain basic Windows licenses and create their own distro CDs, why should this have anything to do with source code? 'Distribution' doesn't mean Open Source CD which anybody can copy.
You mean like 3.1, 95, 98, ME, NT, 2k, XP, etc.
The various Windows versions are 'versions', not 'distributions'. The problem comes where Microsoft is in control of what goes on its CDs, and the fact that it has a monopoly whereby people will mostly only buy Windows, and therefore will use whatever comes pre-installed with it. With a distribution, Microsoft would not be in control of which third-party apps were available for end-users.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Microsoft should not be allowed to sell Windows with any additional apps whatsoever.
With Linux you have different distributions, why can't Windows work on the same principle?
You don't get Mandrake saying "Oh, we're not going to put into our distro, why should we put other people's apps in our distro's?"
The whole point of distributions is that you get loads of apps from loads of developers, and you get to select exactly what you want from the best available apps.
Having Windows distributions is the only way I see of overcoming Microsoft's anti-competitive monopoly.
That would depend on how long it takes them to edit out the Martians laughing at our puny attempts to look at their planet.
You can imagine them all standing around spirit and saying stuff like:
Martian 1: "Look! It's moving!"
Martian 2: "Where? I can't see anything..."
Martian 1: "It's slow, but it is moving, can't you see?"
Martian 3: "Geez! Haven't you guys got anything better to do than poke around with that thing?"
What about Microsoft patches causing BSODs, crashes, or preventing applications from working correctly?
Isn't that more like using a wrecking ball to stop a dam from leaking?
NO!
:)
I mean anarchy!
ARRGH!
I mean that the EU seems to be happy to let everybody do as they please, with a kind of "If it feels right, do it" attitude. It's almost like creating a law that encourages 'lawless' behavior, if you know what I mean.
It could start off with a couple of companies waging war against each other, the next thing you know everybody is taking everybody elses stuff, people are eating each other, and the economy is crumbling. Greed prevails. Everything is brought to a stand-still. Politicians are burnt at the stake. Albatrosses are beheaded. That type of thing.
If only the Sex Pistols had named their song "Chaos in the UK", then I probably wouldn't even have posted this in the first place, and we'd all be much happier.
I see. Very good point.
Maybe the EU is just participating in some devious trick, where it appears to welcome anarchy in an attempt to gain more control.
Perhaps, in order to combat the chaos it has caused, everybody will agree that the government should have more authority.
I don't know about fancy words making my point stronger, I was just thinking about the Sex Pistols.
I didn't say that these laws have produced anarchy, but that the EU seems to be welcoming it.
If you have a law that almost beckons people to cause chaos, surely this goes against laws and government? What will the end result be? Anarchy perhaps? This was my point.
Fancy words. Honestly, what do you think I am? Somebody that likes to show off their superiority?
What, and risk getting assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald?
It actually sounds as if the EU is welcoming anarchy.
I accuse Microsoft of copyright infringement, I'm sure that there must be a whole pile of GPL code hacked into Windows. Can I go ransack all of the Microsoft offices in Europe now?
Well, if you're going to trust Microsoft, you should expect to lose out. It's one of the hard lessons in life.
Three-year contracts? Who is supposed to benefit from this, the end-user or Microsoft? Considering these contracts were brought out at a time where cash was tight you shouldn't really have to think too hard about that.
Since when has Microsoft been concerned about end-users? The only times I've seen this occurrance is when they're about to jump ship.
If you believe Microsoft you'll believe anything. Well, anything except the truth.
Had a Fujitsu laptop, like a P133
For a minute there I thought 'plee' was some new script kiddie word, then I figured out what you meant.
Maybe this is what SCO wants.
SCO tries to get money from any company that supports Linux/Open Source in any way, then the Linux/Open Source supporters boycott that company.
Maybe that's why SCO is trying to make it look as if CA is a traitor.
"(SCO) is grasping at straws to purport CA as a SCO supporter,"
Tell me one area where SCO isn't grasping at straws lately.
It's like somebody getting in a car without wheels and wondering why it won't move. You have to have some knowledge of how a computer works or you'll probably end up going nowhere.
Why would you want to give Microsoft credit for WinXP?
Would you give a terrorist credit for giving up terrorism because he's been caught and has a gun pointed at his head?
Microsoft produced highly insecure, highly flawed, crappy software for years. Only when people were starting to get annoyed with the security and stability issues with Windows, and Linux was getting noticed for being more stable and secure did Microsoft pull its finger out and consider producing secure/stable software.
Of course, Microsoft would deny that Linux/Open Source had anything to do with it. The fact is, without any competition, Microsoft can do whatever it likes, what else would people turn to?
"Darl McBride ... checks into hotels under assumed names. An armed body guard protected him at Harvard Law School when he gave a speech last month."
So, he uses different names and he has a firewall. Why doesn't he use a proxy, that way nobody would know where he was but he could still spread his verbal turd throughout the world. And if anybody attempted a denial of service attack they'd only get the proxy.
My experience with electrocution taught me never to trust old vacuum tube radios again.
It did help me uncover an unknown vocal talent though...
What happened to the concept of a free market?
Microsoft is what happened to it. You're free to do as you please, as long as you use Microsoft software.
Whatever happened to freedom of choice?
Why not have Windows distributions?
Don't allow Microsoft to bundle any of its additional apps with Windows, but give other select distributors rights to bundle software in a Windows package.
You could then have those other distributors offering Windows with multiple browsers, e-mail clients, media players, etc.
I know that people will shriek "ARRGH! No! We don't want to have to choose from mass piles of media players, etc."
But what is the alternative? Microsoft forcing you to use the 'default' Microsoft software? Software which has file formats/codecs controlled by a convicted monopolist?
We already know that Microsoft is certainly not trustworthy. Not even trustworthy enough to distribute its own operating system. Damn, you can't even trust its damn patches.
I'm a tea drinker, I go for a nice strong cup of English Breakfast tea brewed in a pot.
I'm so lazy, even if I drank five gallons of coffee in a day, I'd just sit at my desk wide awake and be even more aware of my boredom.