Sure. Barrier to entry is an easy one. I can go download the Linux kernel and build my own OS. I can then sell it as MyOS. Cost to me: just the hours it takes me to package the apps I want to sell. I could also just pick another base OS like CentOS and just build on it to customize. Ergo the barrier to entry is not high.
Alternative OS's. Well, that's even easier. There are a myriad Linux-based OS's available, various *BSD OS's, Apple's OS, and a ridiculous number of more specialized OS's I can install.
I know. You'll come up with various ridiculous conditions which basically boil down to "but those aren't Windows OS's!". If you want to apply enough silly, specific conditions you can make any product into a monopoly. "Oooh, the ipod is a monopoly because I like to use Itunes and nothing works as well, so it's a monopoly!". Ridiculous on every level.
Essentially there exists no rational argument that MS is a monopoly and should be regulated as one other than appeals to authority "well, the DoJ said they were!".
I'll tell you what I'd do if I were them. I'd release "Windows Desktop Core". It would be like Windows Server Core - comes up to a desktop with a single command prompt window on it. Sell it for 1/3 the price - no IE, or explorer.exe either - maybe that will open up a market for alternative desktops.
Their "monopoly" also apparently stops people from installing any of the _myriad_ alternative OS's, many of which are free. That's some kind of "magic monopoly", the kind where there are a huge number of alternatives and many free ones.
It's like if back in the standard oil days there had been 25 different oil vendors and some of them were charities which gave it away for free. But then they decided to charge Standard Oil anyway to make a few bucks.
I get tired of the "monpoly!" charges against MS. They simply and provably are not a monopoly in an economic or rational sense. That they negotiated a deal with the DoJ only means that the law in the US is more about politics than about rationality. And it's even more so about politics in the EU.
Don't let facts get in your way. I work in a company with 75,000 plus employees and well over that many machines, plus a ridiculous number of other objects. All managed in AD. All with no performance issues.
Ahh. Nice strawman dude, though I guess I was imprecise in my wording. Microsoft indeed allows OEMs to _add_ any browser they want. Microsoft also has a basic minimum set of details they know about _their_ OS, including that IE is installed. The point was not including any browser in the OS is retarded.
Ahh. I see, you're operating on decade+ old data. As with most of your ilk you keep repeating the "convicted monopolist" garbage which is provably a lie as MS was never convicted of anything. You also lie and state, in plain contradiction of fact, that Microsoft prevents OEMs from bundling other browsers when in fact many OEMs do just that.
Probably pretty good, I'd imagine. Are you geeky dweebs (or do you prefer dweeby geeks?) seriously so deluded that you think nobody could disagree with your sad little nerd jihad unless they work for MS?
Oh, I didn't know that. Can you explain where I can look up what it means to be a "convicted monopolist"? Let's pretend for a minute that that phrase actually exists. Let's also pretend that I'm like you idiots and I think whatever the government decides must be right. I mean shit, it's not like our laws or justice system isn't infallible, right?
"Convicted monopolist". Only on SlashDot would you dweebs coin a phrase with such a dramatic implication and then parrot it to eachother over and over.
That's the thing. Nobody but you fucking dweebs gives a shit what technology they use to stream. To you it's all high drama, to everyone else it's "guh?". So you can certainly give him all he blame, and make it all dramatic like - as if his second in command ordered some civilians shot. The rest of the world, however, still thinks you're a dweeb and doesn't give a shit.
Lie. Plain and simple lie. Large corporations (think "fortune 20") use AD and it scales well beyond one hundred thousand objects. Learn to manage Active Directory.
You're missing the point. Microsoft's customers don't want any "interface". They want to click on a link that says "Internet". Microsoft wants to give its customers what they want.
Coming up with some byzantine mechanism for people to get a browser on their system would make a smart person ask "hmm, how about we just include a browser in the product, then if they don't like it they can install any other one from it?".
This is a technical site. You people are supposed to be technical people. Do you expect them to spell out "HTTP" and "WWW" for you every time? How about "FTP", need that clarified?
Re:SOA - a backwards step
on
The Zen of SOA
·
· Score: 1
I know. Things were much better when you had to hand-implement custom binary communications protocols to interoperate with other enterprise services. And we all know having schema dependencies on RDBMS is the cat's meow!
SOA isn't procedural. By that "logic" C++ or Java or C# are procedural because in the end you just call a function. SOA is just about making sure your applications are built from discrete, reusable, supportable components which can communicate easily with one another and with other applications over the network.
It's not magic, and I don't know why you'd be a "skeptic" of something so fundamental. Being skeptical of the market that's grown up around it is fine, but being skeptical of SOA is like being skeptical of OO programming.
You people on SlashDot never cease to amaze me. You consider yourselves the technical elite but most of you don't know what SOA is. You rabidly hate Microsoft, but most of you don't know shit about Windows or MS products beyond "teehee, Vista is the suxx0rs bekause it has teh DRM! teehee!".
Seriously. Let's say you don't "buy into" SOA. Wouldn't you at least know at a basic level what the fuck it is if you're even remotely involved in IT or especially software development?
And no - it's not just "haha, client server with a buzzword, teehee" any more than HTTP is "the web". Idiots.
You = stupid. Everyone here knows you don't need a browser to download something. Similarly, everyone but you knows this is a meaningless point as it's moronic to expect Joe Gardener to use FTP to install a browser.
First, Microsoft does not have a monopoly. You can not have a monopoly in a market with free alternatives _or_ over something which is intellectual property. You can be excused for not knowing this, most people including many legislators and judges aren't smart enough to figure this out.
Second, an operating system includes a browser. To argue otherwise is rank stupidity. So claiming you can't exercise a "monopoly" (see above) in the operating system to create dominance in a component of the operating system is unarguably wrong. The implications of MS releasing an operating system without a browser would be that their product would suck. It would be unsupportable. It wouldn't compete with other OS's that _do_ include a browser.
I know, you'll trot out the tired "but OEMs would add a browser!" argument. The fact is the existence or non-existence of OEMs is irrelevent. Microsoft sells a product, and they support it. If a third party elects to sit between Microsoft and their customers that has nothing to do with anything. People do also just buy the OS off the shelf.
No. This is just a stupid argument by a loser company. The OEMs are free to include other browsers on their machines. More and more people are electing to use Firefox anyway. Opera has lost because Firefox is a better product.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. Barrier to entry is an easy one. I can go download the Linux kernel and build my own OS. I can then sell it as MyOS. Cost to me: just the hours it takes me to package the apps I want to sell. I could also just pick another base OS like CentOS and just build on it to customize. Ergo the barrier to entry is not high.
Alternative OS's. Well, that's even easier. There are a myriad Linux-based OS's available, various *BSD OS's, Apple's OS, and a ridiculous number of more specialized OS's I can install.
I know. You'll come up with various ridiculous conditions which basically boil down to "but those aren't Windows OS's!". If you want to apply enough silly, specific conditions you can make any product into a monopoly. "Oooh, the ipod is a monopoly because I like to use Itunes and nothing works as well, so it's a monopoly!". Ridiculous on every level.
Essentially there exists no rational argument that MS is a monopoly and should be regulated as one other than appeals to authority "well, the DoJ said they were!".
Ahh. You're operating on what I like to call "non-facts". Microsoft does no such thing.
They were convicted in the US
This is a lie and it's untrue. Please go educate yourself - Microsoft wasn't "convicted" of anything.
What's funny is that 2 of the 3 "reasons" are provably wrong. It's funny when "findings of fact" are demonstrably and undeniably incorrect.
I'll tell you what I'd do if I were them. I'd release "Windows Desktop Core". It would be like Windows Server Core - comes up to a desktop with a single command prompt window on it. Sell it for 1/3 the price - no IE, or explorer.exe either - maybe that will open up a market for alternative desktops.
Then ask the EC "what now, bitches?"
What exactly does the sale of hardware that's not available without Windows installed have to do with Microsoft? Absolutely nothing.
Their "monopoly" also apparently stops people from installing any of the _myriad_ alternative OS's, many of which are free. That's some kind of "magic monopoly", the kind where there are a huge number of alternatives and many free ones.
It's like if back in the standard oil days there had been 25 different oil vendors and some of them were charities which gave it away for free. But then they decided to charge Standard Oil anyway to make a few bucks.
I get tired of the "monpoly!" charges against MS. They simply and provably are not a monopoly in an economic or rational sense. That they negotiated a deal with the DoJ only means that the law in the US is more about politics than about rationality. And it's even more so about politics in the EU.
Don't let facts get in your way. I work in a company with 75,000 plus employees and well over that many machines, plus a ridiculous number of other objects. All managed in AD. All with no performance issues.
Ahh. Nice strawman dude, though I guess I was imprecise in my wording. Microsoft indeed allows OEMs to _add_ any browser they want. Microsoft also has a basic minimum set of details they know about _their_ OS, including that IE is installed. The point was not including any browser in the OS is retarded.
Ahh. I see, you're operating on decade+ old data. As with most of your ilk you keep repeating the "convicted monopolist" garbage which is provably a lie as MS was never convicted of anything. You also lie and state, in plain contradiction of fact, that Microsoft prevents OEMs from bundling other browsers when in fact many OEMs do just that.
Probably pretty good, I'd imagine. Are you geeky dweebs (or do you prefer dweeby geeks?) seriously so deluded that you think nobody could disagree with your sad little nerd jihad unless they work for MS?
Oh, I didn't know that. Can you explain where I can look up what it means to be a "convicted monopolist"? Let's pretend for a minute that that phrase actually exists. Let's also pretend that I'm like you idiots and I think whatever the government decides must be right. I mean shit, it's not like our laws or justice system isn't infallible, right?
"Convicted monopolist". Only on SlashDot would you dweebs coin a phrase with such a dramatic implication and then parrot it to eachother over and over.
That's the thing. Nobody but you fucking dweebs gives a shit what technology they use to stream. To you it's all high drama, to everyone else it's "guh?". So you can certainly give him all he blame, and make it all dramatic like - as if his second in command ordered some civilians shot. The rest of the world, however, still thinks you're a dweeb and doesn't give a shit.
Lie. Plain and simple lie. Large corporations (think "fortune 20") use AD and it scales well beyond one hundred thousand objects. Learn to manage Active Directory.
You're lying. Microsoft does not prevent OEM's from bundling other browsers.
You're missing the point. Microsoft's customers don't want any "interface". They want to click on a link that says "Internet". Microsoft wants to give its customers what they want.
Coming up with some byzantine mechanism for people to get a browser on their system would make a smart person ask "hmm, how about we just include a browser in the product, then if they don't like it they can install any other one from it?".
This is a technical site. You people are supposed to be technical people. Do you expect them to spell out "HTTP" and "WWW" for you every time? How about "FTP", need that clarified?
I know. Things were much better when you had to hand-implement custom binary communications protocols to interoperate with other enterprise services. And we all know having schema dependencies on RDBMS is the cat's meow!
SOA isn't procedural. By that "logic" C++ or Java or C# are procedural because in the end you just call a function. SOA is just about making sure your applications are built from discrete, reusable, supportable components which can communicate easily with one another and with other applications over the network.
It's not magic, and I don't know why you'd be a "skeptic" of something so fundamental. Being skeptical of the market that's grown up around it is fine, but being skeptical of SOA is like being skeptical of OO programming.
You people on SlashDot never cease to amaze me. You consider yourselves the technical elite but most of you don't know what SOA is. You rabidly hate Microsoft, but most of you don't know shit about Windows or MS products beyond "teehee, Vista is the suxx0rs bekause it has teh DRM! teehee!".
Seriously. Let's say you don't "buy into" SOA. Wouldn't you at least know at a basic level what the fuck it is if you're even remotely involved in IT or especially software development?
And no - it's not just "haha, client server with a buzzword, teehee" any more than HTTP is "the web". Idiots.
Apparently Microsoft does (in the T&C of their contracts with OEM suppliers). How many OEMs have you seen that bundle firefox with a new install?
Lie. Here, let me try one.
"I've yet to see an Ipod bundled with a box of crayons. Ergo, Apple must be forbidding such a thing."
Oooh "convicted monopolist". How dramatic. You say it with such dramatic poise, too. You certainly convinced me! Ahahahaha. Dweeb.
Haha. You got modded troll for pointing out the obvious. It would go exactly as you say.
CRAZY TALK! ;)
You = stupid. Everyone here knows you don't need a browser to download something. Similarly, everyone but you knows this is a meaningless point as it's moronic to expect Joe Gardener to use FTP to install a browser.
First, Microsoft does not have a monopoly. You can not have a monopoly in a market with free alternatives _or_ over something which is intellectual property. You can be excused for not knowing this, most people including many legislators and judges aren't smart enough to figure this out.
Second, an operating system includes a browser. To argue otherwise is rank stupidity. So claiming you can't exercise a "monopoly" (see above) in the operating system to create dominance in a component of the operating system is unarguably wrong. The implications of MS releasing an operating system without a browser would be that their product would suck. It would be unsupportable. It wouldn't compete with other OS's that _do_ include a browser.
I know, you'll trot out the tired "but OEMs would add a browser!" argument. The fact is the existence or non-existence of OEMs is irrelevent. Microsoft sells a product, and they support it. If a third party elects to sit between Microsoft and their customers that has nothing to do with anything. People do also just buy the OS off the shelf.
No. This is just a stupid argument by a loser company. The OEMs are free to include other browsers on their machines. More and more people are electing to use Firefox anyway. Opera has lost because Firefox is a better product.