Microsoft has prevented many people from doing business. First, they controlled the distribution channels for hardware back in the day when IBM gave Microsoft an exclusive OS deal on the PC. When the clones came out, there was only one OS available: MS-DOS.
When DR-DOS arrived on the scene, Microsoft was quick to block it with exclusionary deals with the distribution channels. Sure you could buy DR-DOS; but since every PC came with MS-DOS (and *only* MS-DOS), what was the point? When DR approached distributors, they were rebuffed and told that their contract with Microsoft would not allow them to distribute another OS.
This is true even later: when Be approached distributors, willing to *give away* BeOS, they were told they couldn't, as Microsoft's contracts would not allow the PC distributors from allowing another OS to appear as a boot option.
This is not even discussing the products that never saw the light of day because Microsoft purchased the company and dismantled the product simply to avoid competition. Back in Java heyday, back before the blush was off the rose, Microsoft bought up a very large portion of the java development startups. They claimed they were simply purchasing the developers (essentially), but considering Microsoft never had a Java development strategy (other than hijacking the language), this argument is disingenuous.
Microsoft has succeeded more by regulating the market than by participating *in* the market. This is the one strikingly clear fact of the entire Microsoft history.
Anyway, this is a long rant; but I'm tired of the "Microsoft is soft and cuddly" comments. Microsoft *has* prevented others from doing business rather than compete with them head-to-head. And personally I consider any control by a single entity as market regulation, with or without government backing.
The major difference is, a corporation is vulnerable to something like Linux. As long as Microsoft is forced to compete on worth, they won't stand a chance. But as soon as they gain government backing (such as a huge frivolous patent portfolio), Linux is suddently put back "in its place:" as a hobbyist OS.
Microsoft's dominance in the marketplace is slipping. The last few years has seen a steady erosion of the gains they made in the server market, and the desktop is no longer looking as secure as it once did. The emerging markets are fucking *huge*, and it looks like Microsoft will not control them: the embedded market, and rapidly developing countries like India and China, which hold a large segment of the world's population.
The desktop is quickly becoming commodity; until AI truly develops, there is very little "innovation" (an overused, useless word these days) at all. Until we have self-managing data and natural-language spoken-word interfaces into the computer, there's very little new stuff out there.
As long as Linux is free to expand into the stagnant desktop or into the frontiers of embedded devices and emerging markets, Linux will-- at the moment, there is very little real difference between them. For every strength MS-Windows possesses, it has an equal weakness (expense, poor security, bad design, etc). Same with Linux. As long as this is true, there is very little reason Linux won't seriously erode Microsoft's desktop market.
Indeed, this is happening today. Last year companies used Linux as a threat to get reduced acquisition costs from Microsoft; this year, malware is so rampant that many companies are actually switching. I believe this trend will continue over the next few years as long as Microsoft doesn't understand this basic tenet-- security is more important than bells and whistles.
I am certain that in any court case the defense would be bringing up the term "monopolist" and "unfair competition". Microsoft would have to be very careful. Unfortunately, Microsoft has now shown this skill in the past.
I am not so certain. Notice how the settlement with Microsoft doesn't favor anyone but Microsoft wrt patents and copyright. Also notice how long the anti-trust trial took to complete-- several years. During that time, Microsoft did not curb their predatory practices one whit.
And as Cringely pointed out, they would be fools to bother worrying about antitrust issues. So what if they are fined a billion dollars every year-- to them, that'd just be the cost of doing business. As long as they controlled the market, they'd pass the savings on to their customers.
This is a much bigger threat than anything we have ever faced. This has the potential not only of locking us out of interoperability, but of any development whatsoever. Remember the GIF and JPG patents, and their chilling effect on the web-- that's right, there wasn't one. People will use Microsoft-patented methods on the web, effectively locking out F/OSS.
This is truly a big deal, one we have expected since even before the first Halloween memo. It's been a long time coming, and I don't think we're any more prepared than we were before, and we face an opponent with significantly greater resources in the arena that matters: marketting, and politics.
This is yet another case of Microsoft setting the industry back many, many years. We should be much further along than we are now.
1. Free market capitalism is the most efficient and stable form of economic distribution/production. Any other economic system that I can think of or have been exposed to does worse for both producers and consumers.
There is only one downside: once the power in a free market shifts to the "producers" away from the "consumers," the market ceases to be free.
(NOTE: I use quotes because I despise the artificial division between producers and consumers. By defining me primarily as a consumer, the argument has already been shaped against me.)
Consider the tech market, which is the one in which I am the most knowledgable. Microsoft has managed to shape the market so there is no "freedom." They have done this using illegal means, and they have been entirely unethical about it.
(If you disagree with me at this point, we might as well call off all further discussion. The "illegal" aspect of it is irrefutable, as they were judged against. The unethical aspect is the unethical behaviour of a schoolyard bully, using their superior position of strength to destroy anyone who might pose a challange, such as the way they blocked BeOS from distribution through major PC outlets.)
In this case, Microsoft has become the de-facto regulatory body. As with any body, even those in control, some initiatives have failed. But in any situation in which they controlled the market, nobody has succeeded they did not allow to succeed. The net snuck up on them (for more information, read Bill Gates' "The Road Ahead," first edition, especially the bit about the internet), the avoided the search space until recently, etc.
Anyway, to get to the point: there is no such thing as a free market. Power is used by those who wield it, and they rarely use it to anyone's benefit but their own. The Enron debacle is one instance of people in charge of a major corporation using political power to gain personal wealth at the expense of millions of others, but "consumers" and their own employees. The fact they got away with it (at the expense of the company they were supposed to run) is an indictment of the system.
There is no free market. It is as much an illusion as the spoon, and we believe in it only because we are told it is there.
You can get a completely free education at Yale or Harvard if you happen to be of the right ethnicity, sex, or economic bracket.
Yale and Harvard still have academic standards in ingress. The "class warfare" problem is real, and it has nothing directly to do with college: schools in poor sections of a city receive less funding than schools in richer sections. The social situation of poor neighborhoods is bad enough: but then they can't get a good education because they don't have money for decent schools.
Yes, if they manage to get an education good enough to allow them to ace the ACT, SAT, and ASAT, then perhaps they can get into Yale or Harvard, and get some of those financial benefits. But the chances of that happening are very, very low, much lower than a well-educated upper-middle-class kid.
Our school system is *designed* this way. Intentionally. Is that class warfare?
Microsoft has plenty of competition. I'm writing this off of a Redhat box.
Yes, because that's the definition of a vital, competitive market: when the only product that can compete is produced and given away for free.
Microsoft has manipulated the market, locking out competitors from the distribution stream, based solely on their market dominance. That is something only a monopoly can do.
Just because they weren't given a governmental monopoly does not make their negative influence any less disasterous on the market.
I do agree with most of what you said; but the reason Gates, et. al. were able to "dominate the Big Guy" was by moving into an expanding area. Small cheap computers were a new frontier, rapidly expanding into new areas. None of the "Big Guys" understood the potential of the PC; IBM itself could have easily dominated the scene by creating their own OS for the hardware they produced. Had they recognized the potential for the PC, they wouldn't have given Mrs. Gates favorite boy a contract for the OS.
Right now, there is very little new territory, and Microsoft refuses the make the same mistakes IBM made. They *almost* made a mistake with the internet; I was quite sure they had fucked up when Mr. Gates described the Internet as a passing fad, but a year later they did a complete turn-around (which prompted a second edition of his book that talked a bit more glowingly of the 'net).
The embedded market *might* be the next frontier, as smaller faster computers fill niches that people didn't even see before (sound familiar?), but I don't expect a clean fight.
There are two scenarios for Free software dominating the big guys. The first is by attrition; that is the route we are taking now. Slowly, Linux is gaining more market share. At this rate, in about 15 years, we'll have a decent market share.
The other is by catastrophe. Microsoft may fuck up so badly they are booted out of the desktop. Personally, I think it should have been done several years ago, what with the shoddy security that allows any desktop machine to transform into a spamming wonder simply by opening an email attachment.
Until the rest of the world agrees with me, though, I fear it's going to be the long. slow, dangerous route.
I think they *do* get it. I think that is the elephant in the living room, something of which they are constantly aware but never speak.
Why would they talk about the one thing that is impossible to spin? The one important aspect of Free software that is dangerous to Microsoft is the one they cannot fight openly. They can't say, "We think Free software is worse than Microsoft's software because they base it on open standards, which inhibits innovation." The closest they can come is to declare open code dangerous to security.
By equating Free software with shareware, they are simply describing Linux, *BSD, Apache, et al as hobby-level software designed to be traded by children, like Yu-Gi-Oh cards.
I think they know exactly what they're up against. Gates and Ballmer may be all kinds of unsavory things, but they are not stupid. The first Halloween document proved years ago they understood the issues facing them.
They just aren't going to ask all their employees how Microsoft can destroy openness and sharing. That would be a bad PR move, I figure.
So says an MCSE, CCNA, CCDA, A+, N+, Network+, WCSP, CCSA, and probably some others that I don't remember but are on my resume. Oh, and I haven't been without a tech job since just out of college in '98 . ..
I have none of that (well, I used to have the CNA, but that was back in '93). I have been employed every month since '90, making embarrassingly large sums of money (which I still manage to spend and remain broke-- go figure).
Everone has a story. Some are successful because of the number of acronyms on a resume; others (like me) are successful because... well, I don't know why I'm successful. I've been a damned hard worker, I'm good at what I do (programming, DBA, sysadmin stuff like email and web, and networking), but really there's nothing fantastic.
I think a lot of it has to do with you. Yeah, getting your foot in the door can be difficult. Me, I started my professional career as a student worker, first fixing media equipment (TVs, VCRs, microfiche readers, etc), then by running the library's LAN. I never got a degree; real work interfered, as I was hired directly from student work into the LAN position.
But, if you haven't been to school, go. Work as a student, make contacts in the area, build a reputation. Me, I'm one of those jack-of-all-trades that other people have said to avoid becoming. It's served me well: I can do anything at all.
But each person has a story. They are all different. Any advice we can give you worked for us; it might not work for you.
You know what I think? I think the whole privacy issue is a "grassroots" campaign initiated, funded, and propogated by the one company scared spitless of Google: Microsoft.
My girlfriend's cousin's best friend's roommate in college reported that his brother-in-law (who works for Microsoft, so you know it's from a reliable source) tells me he "handles" the PR firm that is managing this whole campaign, to make it look like Google is a big, scary ursine terror, instead of the big fluffy teddy bear they really are. Microsoft has (to date) spent $1.2M buying advertising disguised as special-interest groups, "reporters" for major tech rags, and M&Ms for the office.
Really. Don't laugh at me like that. I'm serious. It's all part of Microsoft's astroturf campaign to discredit Google.
Property taxes are based on the assumption that the government is the only thing standing between you and somebody else taking your property. The more property you have, the more the government protects for you, ergo, the more you pay in taxes.
In practice, it's a bit different, of course; often property taxes are used to fund schools, which seems it should be based on the number of kids you have rather than the amount of property you own; but I don't complain, since a good education system is required for the future of any socieity.
Of course, there are many good education systems in the world. And then there's what we have. Different issue, though.
The math is pretty easy: 300 bits per inch * 300 bits per inch is 90,000 bits per square inch, or 10,000 parity bytes per square inch. So, more-or-less, 10k per square inch.
8.5in * 11in = 93.5 in^2. That's 935k. Less than a meg.
Many exploits in the MS-Windows world are application-level exploits, ones that sacrifice security for "usability," for some definition of the term "usability." Many of these features are not really very good to start with (such as those regularly exploited by MS-Outlook worms and trojans).
MS-Windows has its own lion's share of OS-level exploits as well, but most of the annoying ones seem to be user-level.
Can Linux avoid these types of exploits? I believe so. The key factors for OS "ease-of-use" is consistency in application interface between similar applications, ease of software installation, ease of system maintenance, and a sane approach to UI design.
Note none of those require a dumbing-down of the system to suit the user. Basing file type on three letter extensions was just a stupid idea (but a holdover from the DOS days, so understandable); hiding those extensions was not only the act of a moron, but potentially dangerous. Requiring the user to jump through hoops to turn off autoexecute of inserted CD media is just as stupid. (I mean permanently, not just holding down the shift key.)
If Linux doesn't treat the end-user like an idiot, but still provides the services most users are used to, Linux can certainly become easy-to-use and maintain decent security. But it'll take concentrating on the basics: package installation as a user function (perhaps in their own directory tree), for instance.
I think Microsoft's security problems are based more on the way they do business: technical decisions are driven by marketing, not by the needs of the users.
Perhaps the development model of Linux will help avoid those pitfalls.
Anyone want to place bets that Microsoft paid him to say that?
Nah, MS isn't the only one with a livelihood at stake. Linux is going to change the way a lot of people do business; some companies will not be able to adapt, and will die.
This is the sound of someone running scared. Plus, he probably believes what he says. Think about it from his perspective: his company is in the business of supplying good software, and he *knows* it's good software. Linux is deveoped in a strange way, one that is counter-intuitive to current business models. So it's no wonder he has said the things he said. From his perspective, it's true.
He's wrong, of course, but that doesn't change his perspective.
For example: where is a really good OS accounting package? Seriously. There really aren't any.
Does Microsoft make a really good accounting package? Uhm, no, I believe they don't.
Most of the heavy applications are developed and owned by other companies (SAP, Oracle, Peoplesoft, SCT, etc). Most of these really big accounting applications either already exist on Linux, or could be easily ported.
If Microsoft were to vanish today, not many people would miss them in two years. I daresay most of us would be much happier, perhaps.
There is *nothing* that Microsoft makes that either doesn't already have a Linux-based replacement that is as good or better, or doesn't have something positioned to be better soon.
The rate of improvement in OpenOffice.org is nothing short of astounding. Lotus Notes works admirably-- much better than MS-Exchange (though a tich more expensive). MS SQL Server is not very good, and both PostgreSQL and Oracle would be able to replace that easily in the bottom-to-mid range, and the top range, respectively.
See, you limit yourself if you equate the death of Microsoft with the death of all commercial software vendors. Microsoft is *not* the software industry, even though their shadow lies across everything.
This "One Genius" myth is based on an intelligent (perhaps even a genius) person synthesizing the information currently available. Consider that the calculus was invented/discovered almost simultaneiously and independently by both Liebnitz and... that other one. Newton.
If Einstein had not discovered/invented relativity (both special and relative), someone else would have. Maybe not that year, but a few years later.
This is the same myth that surrounds Microsoft-- a lot of people tell me (when I'm badmouthing MS), "If it wasn't for Microsoft, the computer revolution never would have happened!"
To which I respond:
"Bullshit."
The computer revolution was happening. Apple. Commodore. Even Radio Shack. The computer revolution was going to happen with or without Microsoft.
"But they made the computer easy to use!"
Yeah, by ripping off Apple, who ripped off PARC, who ripped off demonstrations of computer applications from the late '60s, early '70s. The point is, this was going to happen.
The time was right. The situation was right. The synthesis was going to happen, because the parts were there, and the lightening was striking.
Microsoft deftly used the naivete of the typical geek against the geeks themselves. Microsoft made it by being the most ruthless bastards around.
And, if this epitomizes the ideals of capitalism, you can have it. If you have to fuck over as many people as possible to succeed, welcome to it. Just don't say that everything was made possible by the most predatory, the most ravenous.
This was going to happen no matter what. It's just that Microsoft grew strong by feasting on the carcasses of those it slaughtered, not by any craft of its own.
Sorry. Didn't mean for this to turn into an anti-Microsoft rant. It's just that I've been saying they are unstoppable for years. (I've also said they don't stand a chance, and they don't; but I can't wait a hundred years to see them felled.)
Really, I just intended a "me too!" for the parent post.
Do you honestly think that if Linux wasn't the dominating system you wouldn't see as many problems as you do with MS? Come on...
Yes, I *do* honestly think that. Consider the case of the web server: Apache has a couple more servers than IIS, yet my access logs show about 30 attempts a day to propogate IIS worms. Not Apache worms: IIS worms. This despite Apache's popularity.
The problem is only partly MS-Windows' popularity. The heart of the problem is that, well, MS-Windows sucks, security-wise.
Microsoft's main problem is their insistence on making everything brain-dead easy, without really making things easy. Double-click on an attachment, and it will blindly run whatever code is attached! Yeah, that's just fuckin' brilliant. Even better: base file type on a three-letter extension, then *hide that extension from the user!* Yeah. Even *more* fuckin' brilliant.
Yes, Linux will eventually become easier to use, so users can install their own software packages without root privs, etc. But so far, the track record indicates that the Linux distribution producers will avoid the same stupid mistakes Microsoft enthusiastically embraces in the basic design.
I've seen that exact same thing-- IT folks clinging to outmoded tech simply because that's all they know, and are too tired and/or lazy to learn something new.
But, I've witnessed exactly the opposite problem, too, or perhaps the exact same problem with an outsourced project.
My wife works at a nonprofit that does management of the federal Welfare To Work Program. The state (AK) installed a "wonderful" database system using all the latest and greatest tech-- based almost entirely on MS products. I mention this because I think it is relevant.
The system sucks so hard, it blows. It is constantly down, data is lost with no real explanation ("The broker crashed," is a common refrain), it is difficult to use, and it sometimes returns incorrect results. There is a multi-hour lag time between data entry and data availability.
Here's my theory: it was designed by people who think they are programmers because they can use MS Visual Studio to create a front-end to an application designed with MS-Access (deployed on MS SQL Server).
One of the downsides of the vaunted MS "ease-of-use" is the proliferation of half-assed coders who think they are hot, who have managed to ignore 50 years of history and knowledge, and are doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again.
I think this is worse than the aging IT folks who hide in government buearocracy, polishing and defending their niche until it both shines and cannot be assaulted. I would rather have old technology that works than new technology that is so misused or intrinsically faulty that it just barely works, and that's "good enough."
But then again, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
But if linux were on every desktop, I'll bet you'd be getting a few emails every day with attachments like "your_paper.sh" that most of us would trivially delete, but many would stupidly run (and these are the same users who would login as root to check their email).
Damn. Got another attachment-- "your_paper.sh". The "sh" must stand for "super-helpful." Cool.
Let's see if I can read it. Do I want to view it, or save it? Uhm... view it.
Gibberish. Starts with "#!/bin/bash". Should have known. Damn.
Let me save it. Then I can double-click it in my file manager.
Damn it! Same gibberish. Time to pull out the big guns, "Fucking Up Your Linux System For Dummies."
Where <level> is a natural number from the set [1-9]
Option is one of:
-a, --all Infect everyone in addressbook
-u <user> Infect only <user>
-s, --spam Invoke spam relay engine [default]
-e [1-9] Set embarrassment level of subject line
-m, --munge Destroy all files, for good measure
-d [1-9] Set debug level (9 = verbose)
dummy@stupidhead>
Good Damn It! I knew Linux was hard to use. I'm going back to MS-Windows, where everything is point-and-click.
Conservatives *are* for free markets. Bush, Cheney and Asscroft aren't conservatives. They're right-wing radicals.. i.e. fascists.
I wish more people would realize this. I generally vote either independent or democrat, but I tend toward libertarianism (not the kind represented by the Libertarians, but that espoused by President Jefferson). I do not believe a completely unregulated free market is the right way; otherwise, we end up with corporations in control, as they wield all the power. (Kind of like we have now.)
Just wanted to clarify, so you know my biases.
But: those fuckers in control right now are *not* republicans in anything but party affiliation. I've known too many republicans, held intelligent and useful discourse with republicans, and generally agree with most of their viewpoints.
Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and the others in charge of our country do *not* practice republican ideals: small government, reduced spending, fiscal responsibility, and a respect for personal liberty and responsibility.
I haven't purchased a copy of MS-Windows (except the version that came with my laptop, which my company purchased for me) in many years-- since MS-Windows 3.1. So, I agree with you completely.
Except.
The company for whom I work is slowly switching from Unix on the desktop (NCD X-Terminals, and SunRay thin clients) to MS-Windows. This is because "The users want it."
Now our IT staff has doubled in size (granted, we are doing more back-end stuff as well, VoIP, more databases, several satellite locations, etc), and most of the time is spent fixing broken computers that were working just fine, broken though the user swears they didn't install any new software, just this cool Santa's Workshop screensaver they downloaded off the 'net.
More and more websites we must access require Internet Explorer. More and more databases are popping up that use MS-SQL Server, or (*shudder*) MS-Access.
Microsoft knows what they are doing. They are using their market clout to keep people locked into their product. When people find out I don't run MS-Windows, they automatically assume I use a Mac, and they scoff. Then, they are bewildered and unsure how to react when I inform them I use Linux; it's as if I suddenly sprouted four-foot nostril hairs, and tiny gnomes were using them to rappel down my chest.
No, Microsoft knows what it's doing, and their bottom line hasn't felt the affects of either Apple *or* Linux. All we've managed so far is to slow their encroachment into the server room.
Holy mixed metaphors Batman! This just makes no sense. Actors and clock rates! Please... don't overclock your actors! Also what is the US Mail doing in here? Maybe I missed something but I don't recall the USPS having anything to do with Microsoft's legal difficulties.
An "Actor" may not be a person; it is an "object" that has an "action." ("Gratuitious" use of quotes provided by Qwerty(r).) He is comparing the legal system to a digital system; it kinda works, I guess.
As far as the USPS is concerned: the modern legal system is designed to use the USPS as a medium to transfer large amounts of data, via "packets." These packets are generally yellowish in color.
The USPS is slower than, say, a network of connected computers (hypothetically called an "Internet"), at least for less-than-massive amounts of data. Since our legal system is currently designed to use the USPS, Microsoft can use this high-bandwidth, extremely high-latency data bus to their advantage: the longer it takes to convict, sentence, and enforce violations, the more money Microsoft makes from their illegal behavior.
I don't recall the proper term, but this is logical fallacy. The fact that the EU has a lousy record does not give MS 2:1 odds of beating the rap. This is not coin-flipping, this is complex legal stuff. Simple odds do not apply.
If the EU had a record of *not* reducing the remedy on appeal, I would feel much more confident about this. As it is, since they have a history of reducing the fine on appeal, I certainly don't feel very confident they'll have the balls to stick to the original remedy.
Simple odds don't apply, but you can use past behavior as an indication of future behavior with a fair amount of confidence.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many ways to prevent businesses.
Microsoft has prevented many people from doing business. First, they controlled the distribution channels for hardware back in the day when IBM gave Microsoft an exclusive OS deal on the PC. When the clones came out, there was only one OS available: MS-DOS.
When DR-DOS arrived on the scene, Microsoft was quick to block it with exclusionary deals with the distribution channels. Sure you could buy DR-DOS; but since every PC came with MS-DOS (and *only* MS-DOS), what was the point? When DR approached distributors, they were rebuffed and told that their contract with Microsoft would not allow them to distribute another OS.
This is true even later: when Be approached distributors, willing to *give away* BeOS, they were told they couldn't, as Microsoft's contracts would not allow the PC distributors from allowing another OS to appear as a boot option.
This is not even discussing the products that never saw the light of day because Microsoft purchased the company and dismantled the product simply to avoid competition. Back in Java heyday, back before the blush was off the rose, Microsoft bought up a very large portion of the java development startups. They claimed they were simply purchasing the developers (essentially), but considering Microsoft never had a Java development strategy (other than hijacking the language), this argument is disingenuous.
Microsoft has succeeded more by regulating the market than by participating *in* the market. This is the one strikingly clear fact of the entire Microsoft history.
Anyway, this is a long rant; but I'm tired of the "Microsoft is soft and cuddly" comments. Microsoft *has* prevented others from doing business rather than compete with them head-to-head. And personally I consider any control by a single entity as market regulation, with or without government backing.
The major difference is, a corporation is vulnerable to something like Linux. As long as Microsoft is forced to compete on worth, they won't stand a chance. But as soon as they gain government backing (such as a huge frivolous patent portfolio), Linux is suddently put back "in its place:" as a hobbyist OS.
Wow - you're a moron.
Do you wish to be pot, or kettle?
Microsoft's dominance in the marketplace is slipping. The last few years has seen a steady erosion of the gains they made in the server market, and the desktop is no longer looking as secure as it once did. The emerging markets are fucking *huge*, and it looks like Microsoft will not control them: the embedded market, and rapidly developing countries like India and China, which hold a large segment of the world's population.
The desktop is quickly becoming commodity; until AI truly develops, there is very little "innovation" (an overused, useless word these days) at all. Until we have self-managing data and natural-language spoken-word interfaces into the computer, there's very little new stuff out there.
As long as Linux is free to expand into the stagnant desktop or into the frontiers of embedded devices and emerging markets, Linux will-- at the moment, there is very little real difference between them. For every strength MS-Windows possesses, it has an equal weakness (expense, poor security, bad design, etc). Same with Linux. As long as this is true, there is very little reason Linux won't seriously erode Microsoft's desktop market.
Indeed, this is happening today. Last year companies used Linux as a threat to get reduced acquisition costs from Microsoft; this year, malware is so rampant that many companies are actually switching. I believe this trend will continue over the next few years as long as Microsoft doesn't understand this basic tenet-- security is more important than bells and whistles.
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
I am certain that in any court case the defense would be bringing up the term "monopolist" and "unfair competition". Microsoft would have to be very careful. Unfortunately, Microsoft has now shown this skill in the past.
I am not so certain. Notice how the settlement with Microsoft doesn't favor anyone but Microsoft wrt patents and copyright. Also notice how long the anti-trust trial took to complete-- several years. During that time, Microsoft did not curb their predatory practices one whit.
And as Cringely pointed out, they would be fools to bother worrying about antitrust issues. So what if they are fined a billion dollars every year-- to them, that'd just be the cost of doing business. As long as they controlled the market, they'd pass the savings on to their customers.
This is a much bigger threat than anything we have ever faced. This has the potential not only of locking us out of interoperability, but of any development whatsoever. Remember the GIF and JPG patents, and their chilling effect on the web-- that's right, there wasn't one. People will use Microsoft-patented methods on the web, effectively locking out F/OSS.
This is truly a big deal, one we have expected since even before the first Halloween memo. It's been a long time coming, and I don't think we're any more prepared than we were before, and we face an opponent with significantly greater resources in the arena that matters: marketting, and politics.
This is yet another case of Microsoft setting the industry back many, many years. We should be much further along than we are now.
. . . at the expense of millions of others, but "consumers" and their own employees.
."
That is, "both 'consumers' and . .
Sorry about that.
1. Free market capitalism is the most efficient and stable form of economic distribution/production. Any other economic system that I can think of or have been exposed to does worse for both producers and consumers.
There is only one downside: once the power in a free market shifts to the "producers" away from the "consumers," the market ceases to be free.
(NOTE: I use quotes because I despise the artificial division between producers and consumers. By defining me primarily as a consumer, the argument has already been shaped against me.)
Consider the tech market, which is the one in which I am the most knowledgable. Microsoft has managed to shape the market so there is no "freedom." They have done this using illegal means, and they have been entirely unethical about it.
(If you disagree with me at this point, we might as well call off all further discussion. The "illegal" aspect of it is irrefutable, as they were judged against. The unethical aspect is the unethical behaviour of a schoolyard bully, using their superior position of strength to destroy anyone who might pose a challange, such as the way they blocked BeOS from distribution through major PC outlets.)
In this case, Microsoft has become the de-facto regulatory body. As with any body, even those in control, some initiatives have failed. But in any situation in which they controlled the market, nobody has succeeded they did not allow to succeed. The net snuck up on them (for more information, read Bill Gates' "The Road Ahead," first edition, especially the bit about the internet), the avoided the search space until recently, etc.
Anyway, to get to the point: there is no such thing as a free market. Power is used by those who wield it, and they rarely use it to anyone's benefit but their own. The Enron debacle is one instance of people in charge of a major corporation using political power to gain personal wealth at the expense of millions of others, but "consumers" and their own employees. The fact they got away with it (at the expense of the company they were supposed to run) is an indictment of the system.
There is no free market. It is as much an illusion as the spoon, and we believe in it only because we are told it is there.
You can get a completely free education at Yale or Harvard if you happen to be of the right ethnicity, sex, or economic bracket.
Yale and Harvard still have academic standards in ingress. The "class warfare" problem is real, and it has nothing directly to do with college: schools in poor sections of a city receive less funding than schools in richer sections. The social situation of poor neighborhoods is bad enough: but then they can't get a good education because they don't have money for decent schools.
Yes, if they manage to get an education good enough to allow them to ace the ACT, SAT, and ASAT, then perhaps they can get into Yale or Harvard, and get some of those financial benefits. But the chances of that happening are very, very low, much lower than a well-educated upper-middle-class kid.
Our school system is *designed* this way. Intentionally. Is that class warfare?
You decide.
Microsoft has plenty of competition. I'm writing this off of a Redhat box.
Yes, because that's the definition of a vital, competitive market: when the only product that can compete is produced and given away for free.
Microsoft has manipulated the market, locking out competitors from the distribution stream, based solely on their market dominance. That is something only a monopoly can do.
Just because they weren't given a governmental monopoly does not make their negative influence any less disasterous on the market.
I do agree with most of what you said; but the reason Gates, et. al. were able to "dominate the Big Guy" was by moving into an expanding area. Small cheap computers were a new frontier, rapidly expanding into new areas. None of the "Big Guys" understood the potential of the PC; IBM itself could have easily dominated the scene by creating their own OS for the hardware they produced. Had they recognized the potential for the PC, they wouldn't have given Mrs. Gates favorite boy a contract for the OS.
Right now, there is very little new territory, and Microsoft refuses the make the same mistakes IBM made. They *almost* made a mistake with the internet; I was quite sure they had fucked up when Mr. Gates described the Internet as a passing fad, but a year later they did a complete turn-around (which prompted a second edition of his book that talked a bit more glowingly of the 'net).
The embedded market *might* be the next frontier, as smaller faster computers fill niches that people didn't even see before (sound familiar?), but I don't expect a clean fight.
There are two scenarios for Free software dominating the big guys. The first is by attrition; that is the route we are taking now. Slowly, Linux is gaining more market share. At this rate, in about 15 years, we'll have a decent market share.
The other is by catastrophe. Microsoft may fuck up so badly they are booted out of the desktop. Personally, I think it should have been done several years ago, what with the shoddy security that allows any desktop machine to transform into a spamming wonder simply by opening an email attachment.
Until the rest of the world agrees with me, though, I fear it's going to be the long. slow, dangerous route.
I think they *do* get it. I think that is the elephant in the living room, something of which they are constantly aware but never speak.
Why would they talk about the one thing that is impossible to spin? The one important aspect of Free software that is dangerous to Microsoft is the one they cannot fight openly. They can't say, "We think Free software is worse than Microsoft's software because they base it on open standards, which inhibits innovation." The closest they can come is to declare open code dangerous to security.
By equating Free software with shareware, they are simply describing Linux, *BSD, Apache, et al as hobby-level software designed to be traded by children, like Yu-Gi-Oh cards.
I think they know exactly what they're up against. Gates and Ballmer may be all kinds of unsavory things, but they are not stupid. The first Halloween document proved years ago they understood the issues facing them.
They just aren't going to ask all their employees how Microsoft can destroy openness and sharing. That would be a bad PR move, I figure.
So says an MCSE, CCNA, CCDA, A+, N+, Network+, WCSP, CCSA, and probably some others that I don't remember but are on my resume. Oh, and I haven't been without a tech job since just out of college in '98 . . .
I have none of that (well, I used to have the CNA, but that was back in '93). I have been employed every month since '90, making embarrassingly large sums of money (which I still manage to spend and remain broke-- go figure).
Everone has a story. Some are successful because of the number of acronyms on a resume; others (like me) are successful because... well, I don't know why I'm successful. I've been a damned hard worker, I'm good at what I do (programming, DBA, sysadmin stuff like email and web, and networking), but really there's nothing fantastic.
I think a lot of it has to do with you. Yeah, getting your foot in the door can be difficult. Me, I started my professional career as a student worker, first fixing media equipment (TVs, VCRs, microfiche readers, etc), then by running the library's LAN. I never got a degree; real work interfered, as I was hired directly from student work into the LAN position.
But, if you haven't been to school, go. Work as a student, make contacts in the area, build a reputation. Me, I'm one of those jack-of-all-trades that other people have said to avoid becoming. It's served me well: I can do anything at all.
But each person has a story. They are all different. Any advice we can give you worked for us; it might not work for you.
You know what I think? I think the whole privacy issue is a "grassroots" campaign initiated, funded, and propogated by the one company scared spitless of Google: Microsoft.
My girlfriend's cousin's best friend's roommate in college reported that his brother-in-law (who works for Microsoft, so you know it's from a reliable source) tells me he "handles" the PR firm that is managing this whole campaign, to make it look like Google is a big, scary ursine terror, instead of the big fluffy teddy bear they really are. Microsoft has (to date) spent $1.2M buying advertising disguised as special-interest groups, "reporters" for major tech rags, and M&Ms for the office.
Really. Don't laugh at me like that. I'm serious. It's all part of Microsoft's astroturf campaign to discredit Google.
Property taxes are based on the assumption that the government is the only thing standing between you and somebody else taking your property. The more property you have, the more the government protects for you, ergo, the more you pay in taxes.
In practice, it's a bit different, of course; often property taxes are used to fund schools, which seems it should be based on the number of kids you have rather than the amount of property you own; but I don't complain, since a good education system is required for the future of any socieity.
Of course, there are many good education systems in the world. And then there's what we have. Different issue, though.
Anyway, property taxes are understandable.
The math is pretty easy: 300 bits per inch * 300 bits per inch is 90,000 bits per square inch, or 10,000 parity bytes per square inch. So, more-or-less, 10k per square inch.
8.5in * 11in = 93.5 in^2. That's 935k. Less than a meg.
Many exploits in the MS-Windows world are application-level exploits, ones that sacrifice security for "usability," for some definition of the term "usability." Many of these features are not really very good to start with (such as those regularly exploited by MS-Outlook worms and trojans).
MS-Windows has its own lion's share of OS-level exploits as well, but most of the annoying ones seem to be user-level.
Can Linux avoid these types of exploits? I believe so. The key factors for OS "ease-of-use" is consistency in application interface between similar applications, ease of software installation, ease of system maintenance, and a sane approach to UI design.
Note none of those require a dumbing-down of the system to suit the user. Basing file type on three letter extensions was just a stupid idea (but a holdover from the DOS days, so understandable); hiding those extensions was not only the act of a moron, but potentially dangerous. Requiring the user to jump through hoops to turn off autoexecute of inserted CD media is just as stupid. (I mean permanently, not just holding down the shift key.)
If Linux doesn't treat the end-user like an idiot, but still provides the services most users are used to, Linux can certainly become easy-to-use and maintain decent security. But it'll take concentrating on the basics: package installation as a user function (perhaps in their own directory tree), for instance.
I think Microsoft's security problems are based more on the way they do business: technical decisions are driven by marketing, not by the needs of the users.
Perhaps the development model of Linux will help avoid those pitfalls.
Anyone want to place bets that Microsoft paid him to say that?
Nah, MS isn't the only one with a livelihood at stake. Linux is going to change the way a lot of people do business; some companies will not be able to adapt, and will die.
This is the sound of someone running scared. Plus, he probably believes what he says. Think about it from his perspective: his company is in the business of supplying good software, and he *knows* it's good software. Linux is deveoped in a strange way, one that is counter-intuitive to current business models. So it's no wonder he has said the things he said. From his perspective, it's true.
He's wrong, of course, but that doesn't change his perspective.
For example: where is a really good OS accounting package? Seriously. There really aren't any.
Does Microsoft make a really good accounting package? Uhm, no, I believe they don't.
Most of the heavy applications are developed and owned by other companies (SAP, Oracle, Peoplesoft, SCT, etc). Most of these really big accounting applications either already exist on Linux, or could be easily ported.
If Microsoft were to vanish today, not many people would miss them in two years. I daresay most of us would be much happier, perhaps.
There is *nothing* that Microsoft makes that either doesn't already have a Linux-based replacement that is as good or better, or doesn't have something positioned to be better soon.
The rate of improvement in OpenOffice.org is nothing short of astounding. Lotus Notes works admirably-- much better than MS-Exchange (though a tich more expensive). MS SQL Server is not very good, and both PostgreSQL and Oracle would be able to replace that easily in the bottom-to-mid range, and the top range, respectively.
See, you limit yourself if you equate the death of Microsoft with the death of all commercial software vendors. Microsoft is *not* the software industry, even though their shadow lies across everything.
This "One Genius" myth is based on an intelligent (perhaps even a genius) person synthesizing the information currently available. Consider that the calculus was invented/discovered almost simultaneiously and independently by both Liebnitz and... that other one. Newton.
If Einstein had not discovered/invented relativity (both special and relative), someone else would have. Maybe not that year, but a few years later.
This is the same myth that surrounds Microsoft-- a lot of people tell me (when I'm badmouthing MS), "If it wasn't for Microsoft, the computer revolution never would have happened!"
To which I respond:
"Bullshit."
The computer revolution was happening. Apple. Commodore. Even Radio Shack. The computer revolution was going to happen with or without Microsoft.
"But they made the computer easy to use!"
Yeah, by ripping off Apple, who ripped off PARC, who ripped off demonstrations of computer applications from the late '60s, early '70s. The point is, this was going to happen.
The time was right. The situation was right. The synthesis was going to happen, because the parts were there, and the lightening was striking.
Microsoft deftly used the naivete of the typical geek against the geeks themselves. Microsoft made it by being the most ruthless bastards around.
And, if this epitomizes the ideals of capitalism, you can have it. If you have to fuck over as many people as possible to succeed, welcome to it. Just don't say that everything was made possible by the most predatory, the most ravenous.
This was going to happen no matter what. It's just that Microsoft grew strong by feasting on the carcasses of those it slaughtered, not by any craft of its own.
Sorry. Didn't mean for this to turn into an anti-Microsoft rant. It's just that I've been saying they are unstoppable for years. (I've also said they don't stand a chance, and they don't; but I can't wait a hundred years to see them felled.)
Really, I just intended a "me too!" for the parent post.
Do you honestly think that if Linux wasn't the dominating system you wouldn't see as many problems as you do with MS? Come on...
Yes, I *do* honestly think that. Consider the case of the web server: Apache has a couple more servers than IIS, yet my access logs show about 30 attempts a day to propogate IIS worms. Not Apache worms: IIS worms. This despite Apache's popularity.
The problem is only partly MS-Windows' popularity. The heart of the problem is that, well, MS-Windows sucks, security-wise.
Microsoft's main problem is their insistence on making everything brain-dead easy, without really making things easy. Double-click on an attachment, and it will blindly run whatever code is attached! Yeah, that's just fuckin' brilliant. Even better: base file type on a three-letter extension, then *hide that extension from the user!* Yeah. Even *more* fuckin' brilliant.
Yes, Linux will eventually become easier to use, so users can install their own software packages without root privs, etc. But so far, the track record indicates that the Linux distribution producers will avoid the same stupid mistakes Microsoft enthusiastically embraces in the basic design.
Maybe not. But so far, it looks promising.
What percentage of IT problems would you say are created because programmers think they know the right way but don't?
Exactly 43.92%, costing the industry around $2.34 billion in lost revenue.
Now can I work for Forrester?
I've seen that exact same thing-- IT folks clinging to outmoded tech simply because that's all they know, and are too tired and/or lazy to learn something new.
But, I've witnessed exactly the opposite problem, too, or perhaps the exact same problem with an outsourced project.
My wife works at a nonprofit that does management of the federal Welfare To Work Program. The state (AK) installed a "wonderful" database system using all the latest and greatest tech-- based almost entirely on MS products. I mention this because I think it is relevant.
The system sucks so hard, it blows. It is constantly down, data is lost with no real explanation ("The broker crashed," is a common refrain), it is difficult to use, and it sometimes returns incorrect results. There is a multi-hour lag time between data entry and data availability.
Here's my theory: it was designed by people who think they are programmers because they can use MS Visual Studio to create a front-end to an application designed with MS-Access (deployed on MS SQL Server).
One of the downsides of the vaunted MS "ease-of-use" is the proliferation of half-assed coders who think they are hot, who have managed to ignore 50 years of history and knowledge, and are doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again.
I think this is worse than the aging IT folks who hide in government buearocracy, polishing and defending their niche until it both shines and cannot be assaulted. I would rather have old technology that works than new technology that is so misused or intrinsically faulty that it just barely works, and that's "good enough."
But then again, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Damn. Got another attachment-- "your_paper.sh". The "sh" must stand for "super-helpful." Cool.
Let's see if I can read it. Do I want to view it, or save it? Uhm... view it.
Gibberish. Starts with "#!/bin/bash". Should have known. Damn.
Let me save it. Then I can double-click it in my file manager.
Damn it! Same gibberish. Time to pull out the big guns, "Fucking Up Your Linux System For Dummies."Good Damn It! I knew Linux was hard to use. I'm going back to MS-Windows, where everything is point-and-click.
Conservatives *are* for free markets. Bush, Cheney and Asscroft aren't conservatives. They're right-wing radicals.. i.e. fascists.
I wish more people would realize this. I generally vote either independent or democrat, but I tend toward libertarianism (not the kind represented by the Libertarians, but that espoused by President Jefferson). I do not believe a completely unregulated free market is the right way; otherwise, we end up with corporations in control, as they wield all the power. (Kind of like we have now.)
Just wanted to clarify, so you know my biases.
But: those fuckers in control right now are *not* republicans in anything but party affiliation. I've known too many republicans, held intelligent and useful discourse with republicans, and generally agree with most of their viewpoints.
Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and the others in charge of our country do *not* practice republican ideals: small government, reduced spending, fiscal responsibility, and a respect for personal liberty and responsibility.
They are fascists, pure and simple.
I haven't purchased a copy of MS-Windows (except the version that came with my laptop, which my company purchased for me) in many years-- since MS-Windows 3.1. So, I agree with you completely.
Except.
The company for whom I work is slowly switching from Unix on the desktop (NCD X-Terminals, and SunRay thin clients) to MS-Windows. This is because "The users want it."
Now our IT staff has doubled in size (granted, we are doing more back-end stuff as well, VoIP, more databases, several satellite locations, etc), and most of the time is spent fixing broken computers that were working just fine, broken though the user swears they didn't install any new software, just this cool Santa's Workshop screensaver they downloaded off the 'net.
More and more websites we must access require Internet Explorer. More and more databases are popping up that use MS-SQL Server, or (*shudder*) MS-Access.
Microsoft knows what they are doing. They are using their market clout to keep people locked into their product. When people find out I don't run MS-Windows, they automatically assume I use a Mac, and they scoff. Then, they are bewildered and unsure how to react when I inform them I use Linux; it's as if I suddenly sprouted four-foot nostril hairs, and tiny gnomes were using them to rappel down my chest.
No, Microsoft knows what it's doing, and their bottom line hasn't felt the affects of either Apple *or* Linux. All we've managed so far is to slow their encroachment into the server room.
Those of us that use XP and 2k would not agree with you. They are both a hell of a lot more stable than Win95/98/SE/ME.
That's damning with faint praise....
Holy mixed metaphors Batman! This just makes no sense. Actors and clock rates! Please... don't overclock your actors! Also what is the US Mail doing in here? Maybe I missed something but I don't recall the USPS having anything to do with Microsoft's legal difficulties.
An "Actor" may not be a person; it is an "object" that has an "action." ("Gratuitious" use of quotes provided by Qwerty(r).) He is comparing the legal system to a digital system; it kinda works, I guess.
As far as the USPS is concerned: the modern legal system is designed to use the USPS as a medium to transfer large amounts of data, via "packets." These packets are generally yellowish in color.
The USPS is slower than, say, a network of connected computers (hypothetically called an "Internet"), at least for less-than-massive amounts of data. Since our legal system is currently designed to use the USPS, Microsoft can use this high-bandwidth, extremely high-latency data bus to their advantage: the longer it takes to convict, sentence, and enforce violations, the more money Microsoft makes from their illegal behavior.
I don't recall the proper term, but this is logical fallacy. The fact that the EU has a lousy record does not give MS 2:1 odds of beating the rap. This is not coin-flipping, this is complex legal stuff. Simple odds do not apply.
If the EU had a record of *not* reducing the remedy on appeal, I would feel much more confident about this. As it is, since they have a history of reducing the fine on appeal, I certainly don't feel very confident they'll have the balls to stick to the original remedy.
Simple odds don't apply, but you can use past behavior as an indication of future behavior with a fair amount of confidence.