It's not like they've NOT signed a deal with Microsoft which doesn't seem to imply they're going to include Microsoft patented code in their SUSE product. And from what was recently posted on Groklaw( http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/articl e.php?story=20061204084504239 ) it sure looks like Microsoft can take anybody to court whenever they want to anyways. With or without a SUSE license. IMO.
And SUSE actually started to look interesting. Too bad but now it's the poriah of open source.
you know, one which determines the distance between the following vehicle and itself, uses speed, road conditions, and weather reports and if it's found to be too close it burns a hole in the following vehicles radiator.;-) And to not be such a 'bad guy', the system could flash a strobe light 3 quick bursts(aka warning shots ) before letting the laser loose.;-)
I've already noticed Zune being advertised front/center from companies traditionally putting the iPod there. IMO, just as Microsoft feeds $$ to companies to push Windows, Microsoft will be spending billions paying companies to market thier Zune.
So, no matter how bad the sales are today, we are stuck seeing it's ugly face for years to come. It's another Windows CE, they will pay and lose money to knock the leader down to a controllable level( 50% marketshare ). The same goes for the Xbox.
it's all a moot point since it does not matter if Microsoft every makes a profit off of Xbox, E&D division, or whatever they call it the next re-org(next year?). Just as they were and are willing to lose billions on WindowsCE/WindowsMobile/PocketPC/whatever to kill off the competition, the same goes for their game console. Heck, they've lost over $8 BILLION on WinCE over ~9 years and had only one profitable quarter( about a year ago ). Even then, that magic quarter showed up right after they cut their R&D budget from ~$6.5 BILLION to ~$3.2 BILLION.
So, don't waste your time listening to what Bill, Steve, whoever says about making a profit off of some other Microsoft product besides Windows. It's hardly likely to happen and because the products are all designed and targetted to protect Microsofts Windows monopoly, losing a billon or two each year is worth every penny considering the profits they get from Windows and it's other tied-in, MS Office.
BTW, hemorrhaging money to keep the competition from becoming a threat has been in Microsoft rulebook for about a couple of decades.
Thanks and in light of this, it would seem that the MSFT employee may have been appointed to this committee to appease Microsoft. Though it looks like this appointment may have little influence outside of setting discussion topics and language of such, they still have more of a voice than a voice in the crowd.
I wonder, has he been appointed specifically because of his previous involvement, or did Microsoft ask for this appointment?
And remember, these committees will not be meeting in public when they define their public meeting topics, language, etc. Don't under estimate what a single mole can do to effect change. Especially when his/her motives are premeditated.
I don't think many would have a problem with someone on this board being pro-Microsoft but being FROM Microsoft and being anti-ODF, this guy does not belong on the board. IMO. He may have an alternate view but we all know it'll be skewed for financial reasons. If he's totally broken ties with Microsoft, and is free to think independently, then he could have something interesting to add. Othewise, he's just going to slow down the process and feed back inside information back to Microsoft so that they can change marketing 'investment' allocations in the state to fight it. IMO.
Right, one side promoting a publicly open and patent free specification called ODF and the other fighting against it each can be considered 'special' interests. But it sure sounds like being on one side or the other is VERY different. I mean after all, Micrsoft Office could support ODF if Micrsoft wanted it to since ODF is an OPEN and publicly available specification. This is really about Microsoft losing the ability to lock its customers to the Microsoft products and not about the states ability to access digital documents 200 years from now.
So you are correct in that there are 'special' interests involved but for the government to hire an advocate from a particular special interest is wrong. Not to mention he is from the company(special interest) who is more against the proposal(ODF) than about promoting their product . And this, IMO, is BAD BAD BAD for the people of the state.
It just seems really strange for the governor to be doing this given the publicity it's had in the last few years. Obviously this Microsoft guys bias is purely financial, unless he's broken all ties to Microsoft, their stock, and personnel.
they why do they still threaten to change their current pricing 'plans' if a vendor ships a Linux based product? I heard this from a former HP project manager so that 95% marketshare isn't always enough considering the small markups they get and the support costs which go with it.
don't forget that all these devices are money losing ventures. They've probably lost their first billion on the Xbox and have lost over $8 billion on Windows CE/PocketPC/WindowsMobile/... Zune will also lose billions and this is OK with Microsoft because, as previously stated, protecting the Windows monopoly is the goal. Sony was moving the game console into the media center, Palm was thought to be capable of building a more powerful OS, and Apple is also moving into the media center. All these are seen a threats to Windows and spending/losing a few billion annually is nothing when you take in over $10 billion in profits annually. IMO.
That sounds just like what Microsoft wants since it triggers mistrust and legal fears which would put a stop to any more migrations from Windows to Linux. And know that Microsoft has spent and lost 10s of billions of dollars on money losing 'businesses' just to keep Windows in a monopoly position. They have no problem with that and have the cash to continue for a long time. But, GNU/Linux is getting so widespread that they can't go anywhere without someone asking them about GNU/Linux/FOSS and it now seems to be the time they step up the fight.
It's gonna get bloody and though it'll hurt GNU/Linux/FOSS in the short term, IMO, Microsoft will end up the loser. There are just too many on the GNU/Linux side.
The brilliant people at Microsoft thought they could wow the public with marketing and still keep the price at the same level as the iPod. What they don't seem to get is that not only is the iPod good at playing customers music but it's also got a cool factor, 'in' crowd, etc stigma attached to it that equal price isn't enough.
Not until Microsoft starts selling the device at a good loss( like WinCE and Xbox ) and really undercut the competition, the Zune is soon to be doomed. IMO. I do think that Microsoft will drop the price on this since Bill G keeps pushing it like it's the next great thing and since they control the hardware( Xbox ) they can hide the losses in R&D or marketing or some other place. It'll probably sell well at $150 and definately not above $200. Only Microsoft fan-boys would purchase it at existing prices. Again, IMO.
And like they did with Palm/PalmOS, the iPod is a threat to Windows in that it can grow a community totally outside the control of Microsoft. Grow a platform API( iTunes, iPod video, etc ) outside of Microsoft control and all this is a threat to Windows and the Windows monopoly. So they WILL drop the price and start taking a larger loss on the productline. Heck, they've LOST over $8billion on WindowsCE alone so losing a couple of billion on Zune to drop Appls marketshare to 50% is worth it to them. Remember, they must proect the WindowsOS gravy train.
Good one and thanks. You're probably right since he went to the effort to spell it all out in his reply. Hence my winky(sic?) notation. Again, I appreciate the comments on this and expect you guys to bust my ass if I do it again.
Gawd, you're the first asshole who's corrected me on this. Thanks Mr Foreman. I'll see if you're right about this and try to do better by you next time. If not, you'll get my shoe up YOUR ASS.;-)
Did I not say "Linux was really late to the game with regards to the pre-emptive kernel."? I see now that the original poster was probably talking about process based preemptive multi-tasking as you mentioned. And I guess that might be something to be proud of compared to DOS and DOS/Windows but when Linux hit the net, OS/2 and NT were on the market and they both had preemptive kernel based multitasking and THAT was/is pretty cool. UNIX and any 'real' OS has had pre-emptive process based multi-tasking for decades and any good OS Design book would teach it. Saying Microsoft copied that from UNIX or Linux is kinda pushing it IMO.
And I know Windows multi-tasking still sucks. GNU/Linux is better and OS/2 and BeOS are/were better still. And anything less than kernel based preemptive multi-tasking and process multi-threading is sooo 1990s IMO.
Not on this I'm not and I specifically noted that there was a difference between preemption and multi-threading. You should so some research on these subjects and here is one link to help you learn when Linux got preemption:
'Gozer' has now, or will soon be, materialized and Novell could be our 'Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man'.
Bad analogy. Gozer lost and the Marshmellow Man got roasted.
Gozer was the bad guy and yes, he lost.
The Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man was brought forth by Gozer but created/conceived by one
of the good guys. The Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man was a bad guy and also lost.
They've used this 'tactic' in the 90's when they told a handful of companies they'd license Win32 to them UNIX applications could be ported to Win32 and still run 'native' on UNIX AND Windows. The Microsoft magic happened once the big UNIX apps were ported to Win32. At that time, Microsoft pulled the rug out from under those handful of companies licensing Win32 by quadrupaling the licensing fee instantly. None of them, save one, could afford to do this and stil make a profit. The one company who could afford to pay this high price was also the only company Microsoft paid to port a Microsoft product to this Win32-on-UNIX runtime. You know, pay them so they can pay out and at the same time, kill off all the others legally. Bristel tried to take them to court but while winning, they also lost in that they were awarded only $1 because they could not prove Microsoft had a monopoly in the workstation market.
So this is a BAD deal and there probably is not a single example of any of these Microsoft partnerships ending up being good for the market or the 'partners'. And once again, it looks like Novell does NOT have the vision that Ray Noorda had for them. Sorry Novell but IMO, everyone should stay away from Suse like it had bird flu or something actually really threatening.
Microsoft has gone after "lunch money" before. When they were attempting to get as many school systems on Microsofts License 6 scheme, they used the BSA to trigger clauses in the Microsoft Windows EULA to force expensive audits on various school systems across the US. Many caved in and paid for MS License 6 instead of the 10's to 100's of thousands it would cost for th audit only to have a handful of illegal copies still cost them millions. But, a few fought back and dumped MS Windows for GNU/Linux and then started telling other school systems about it and how it was much cheaper than MS License 6 or the audit.
Google for Oregon school Linux Microsoft BSA or similar terms and you should get some hits on the topic.
Microsoft just might be forcing an 'event' in the market they really don't want to occur. The fact that they are even using the "L" word and signing/paying off a "L" word company is amazing enough and shows they are having a 'problem' with GNU/Linux and probably FOSS too. IMO.
Linux was really late to the game with regards to the pre-emptive kernel. I think OS/2 had it in the late 80's if not by 1992 with OS/2 v2.0. Microsoft also had it in MS Windows NT v3.0( v1.0 ) in 93' or 94'. The Linux kernel didn't get preemption til recently( maybe 2002 ).
I'm not sure when UNIX got preemptive multitasking but Solaris got multi-threading around the 95' or 96' timeframe. It was the first UNIX OS with this. OS/2 had this in the late 80's and Windows NT in the early 90's.
BTW, Microsoft has used BSD code in Windows and that license allows it. But I wouldn't doubt that there's also some GPL'd code in there too but it'll be years before we find that out. Probably DOJ vs MSFT v3.0.
Their shareholders should be pretty pissed at THAT kind of money making scheme. But me thinks it's more like their money making scheme with regard to WindowsCE and Xbox. You know, the scheme to take profits from the Windows monopoly( around $10 billion so far ) and keep the WindowsCE and Xbox products on the market so nobody else jumps in and grows to threaten the Windows monopoly/gravy train.
IMO, in the next few years we are going to see the public finally seeing Microsoft for what they really are. After all, FOSS and GNU/Linux must be doing SOMETHING or else Microsoft would not be doing so much in the public and financial markets regarding them. Unfortunately, I don't see very much of this in the United States so it must be going on elsewhere or outside of my sight.
'Gozer' has now, or will soon be, materialized and Novell could be our 'Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man'. Will it be IBM, Oracle, RedHat, or others who bust this party up? Or will the US become to knowns as "The land of Gozer", if it isn't already?
yea, I think I purchased atleast one computer with MS DOS on it and once they hit monopoly status/control with MS DOS, the choice for consumers went out the windows. Look at the long long trail of court docs for all the lovely things Microsoft had done over the years to maintain that OS monopoly. IMO.
their future customers use patented MSFT technologies in GNOME, MONO, and SUSE Linux good enough? They're not even going to sue any ONE developer if that developer is only doing nonCOMMERCIAL FOSS work. Man, what do you/EU want from them/MSFT?;-/
Good to see atleast one organization willing to, and with the power to, nail Microsoft for playing games with them regarding their monopoly power over the PC market. IMO.
but nooooo, they/AMD had some kind of 'deal' with Microsoft and these came with Windows installed and the BIOS would not let you put anything else on there. Why they were over $200 is beyond me since they were a small singleboard computer in a simple clamshell case. Not keyboard, display, or mouse.
Like I said, they should have been $100 and provide support for USB storage if you wanted to add more software( think flashfs or whatever Knoppix is using for overlaying the root filesystem ).
Too bad they didn't think of the exit strategy when signing on with Microsoft. IMO.
a number of revenue streams such as subscription fees, lower cost hardware, advertising and of course traditional transaction.
Obviously, when ever a Microsoft exec speaks, the only thing you can count on is hot air escaping their lips. But really, this does give some insight into how they will continue to fight FOSS. They've been trying the SUBSCRIPTION FEE approach for a few years already. The LOWER COST HARDWARE is an interesting one since it means subsidies for OEMs( like marketing dollars, etc? ) or maybe even more MS hardware. DOJ round 3 anyone? The Xbox is an example of this approach. Then there's the ADVERTISING model and this one should be quite interesting. Will your kids highschool class presentation have a banner ad for Target or Cialis running? Or better yet, will Microsoft subsidise THAT sector by initially advertising only Microsoft products/services with moving monopoly profits around inside the company? Hey, they've put millions of dollars in a fund to 'support' Windows vs Linux migration attempts and with billions in cash, they'll hardly feel the hit. IMO.
They've got a number of tricks up their sleeves and it seems Steve is somewhat willing to give hints as to what some of those tricks are. Too bad making reliable and secure software isn't mentioned...
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like they've NOT signed a deal with Microsoft which doesn't seem to imply they're going to include Microsoft patented code in their SUSE product. And from what was recently posted on Groklaw( http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/articl e.php?story=20061204084504239 ) it sure looks like Microsoft can take anybody to court whenever they want to anyways. With or without a SUSE license. IMO.
And SUSE actually started to look interesting. Too bad but now it's the poriah of open source.
LoB
you know, one which determines the distance between the following vehicle and itself, uses speed, road conditions, and weather reports and if it's found to be too close it burns a hole in the following vehicles radiator. ;-) And to not be such a 'bad guy', the system could flash a strobe light 3 quick bursts(aka warning shots ) before letting the laser loose. ;-)
LoB
I've already noticed Zune being advertised front/center from companies traditionally putting the iPod there. IMO, just as Microsoft feeds $$ to companies to push Windows, Microsoft will be spending billions paying companies to market thier Zune.
So, no matter how bad the sales are today, we are stuck seeing it's ugly face for years to come. It's another Windows CE, they will pay and lose money to knock the leader down to a controllable level( 50% marketshare ). The same goes for the Xbox.
LoB
it's all a moot point since it does not matter if Microsoft every makes a profit off of Xbox, E&D division, or whatever they call it the next re-org(next year?). Just as they were and are willing to lose billions on WindowsCE/WindowsMobile/PocketPC/whatever to kill off the competition, the same goes for their game console. Heck, they've lost over $8 BILLION on WinCE over ~9 years and had only one profitable quarter( about a year ago ). Even then, that magic quarter showed up right after they cut their R&D budget from ~$6.5 BILLION to ~$3.2 BILLION.
So, don't waste your time listening to what Bill, Steve, whoever says about making a profit off of some other Microsoft product besides Windows. It's hardly likely to happen and because the products are all designed and targetted to protect Microsofts Windows monopoly, losing a billon or two each year is worth every penny considering the profits they get from Windows and it's other tied-in, MS Office.
BTW, hemorrhaging money to keep the competition from becoming a threat has been in Microsoft rulebook for about a couple of decades.
LoB
Thanks and in light of this, it would seem that the MSFT employee may have been appointed to this committee to appease Microsoft. Though it looks like this appointment may have little influence outside of setting discussion topics and language of such, they still have more of a voice than a voice in the crowd.
I wonder, has he been appointed specifically because of his previous involvement, or did Microsoft ask for this appointment?
And remember, these committees will not be meeting in public when they define their public meeting topics, language, etc. Don't under estimate what a single mole can do to effect change. Especially when his/her motives are premeditated.
LoB
I don't think many would have a problem with someone on this board being pro-Microsoft but being FROM Microsoft and being anti-ODF, this guy does not belong on the board. IMO. He may have an alternate view but we all know it'll be skewed for financial reasons. If he's totally broken ties with Microsoft, and is free to think independently, then he could have something interesting to add. Othewise, he's just going to slow down the process and feed back inside information back to Microsoft so that they can change marketing 'investment' allocations in the state to fight it. IMO.
LoB
Right, one side promoting a publicly open and patent free specification called ODF and the other fighting against it each can be considered 'special' interests. But it sure sounds like being on one side or the other is VERY different. I mean after all, Micrsoft Office could support ODF if Micrsoft wanted it to since ODF is an OPEN and publicly available specification. This is really about Microsoft losing the ability to lock its customers to the Microsoft products and not about the states ability to access digital documents 200 years from now.
So you are correct in that there are 'special' interests involved but for the government to hire an advocate from a particular special interest is wrong. Not to mention he is from the company(special interest) who is more against the proposal(ODF) than about promoting their product . And this, IMO, is BAD BAD BAD for the people of the state.
It just seems really strange for the governor to be doing this given the publicity it's had in the last few years. Obviously this Microsoft guys bias is purely financial, unless he's broken all ties to Microsoft, their stock, and personnel.
LoB
they why do they still threaten to change their current pricing 'plans' if a vendor ships a Linux based product? I heard this from a former HP project manager so that 95% marketshare isn't always enough considering the small markups they get and the support costs which go with it.
LoB
don't forget that all these devices are money losing ventures. They've probably lost their first billion on the Xbox and have lost over $8 billion on Windows CE/PocketPC/WindowsMobile/... Zune will also lose billions and this is OK with Microsoft because, as previously stated, protecting the Windows monopoly is the goal. Sony was moving the game console into the media center, Palm was thought to be capable of building a more powerful OS, and Apple is also moving into the media center. All these are seen a threats to Windows and spending/losing a few billion annually is nothing when you take in over $10 billion in profits annually. IMO.
LoB
That sounds just like what Microsoft wants since it triggers mistrust and legal fears which would put a stop to any more migrations from Windows to Linux. And know that Microsoft has spent and lost 10s of billions of dollars on money losing 'businesses' just to keep Windows in a monopoly position. They have no problem with that and have the cash to continue for a long time. But, GNU/Linux is getting so widespread that they can't go anywhere without someone asking them about GNU/Linux/FOSS and it now seems to be the time they step up the fight.
It's gonna get bloody and though it'll hurt GNU/Linux/FOSS in the short term, IMO, Microsoft will end up the loser. There are just too many on the GNU/Linux side.
LoB
The brilliant people at Microsoft thought they could wow the public with marketing and still keep the price at the same level as the iPod. What they don't seem to get is that not only is the iPod good at playing customers music but it's also got a cool factor, 'in' crowd, etc stigma attached to it that equal price isn't enough.
Not until Microsoft starts selling the device at a good loss( like WinCE and Xbox ) and really undercut the competition, the Zune is soon to be doomed. IMO. I do think that Microsoft will drop the price on this since Bill G keeps pushing it like it's the next great thing and since they control the hardware( Xbox ) they can hide the losses in R&D or marketing or some other place. It'll probably sell well at $150 and definately not above $200. Only Microsoft fan-boys would purchase it at existing prices. Again, IMO.
And like they did with Palm/PalmOS, the iPod is a threat to Windows in that it can grow a community totally outside the control of Microsoft. Grow a platform API( iTunes, iPod video, etc ) outside of Microsoft control and all this is a threat to Windows and the Windows monopoly. So they WILL drop the price and start taking a larger loss on the productline. Heck, they've LOST over $8billion on WindowsCE alone so losing a couple of billion on Zune to drop Appls marketshare to 50% is worth it to them. Remember, they must proect the WindowsOS gravy train.
LoB
Good one and thanks. You're probably right since he went to the effort to spell it all out in his reply. Hence my winky(sic?) notation. Again, I appreciate the comments on this and expect you guys to bust my ass if I do it again.
LoB
Gawd, you're the first asshole who's corrected me on this. Thanks Mr Foreman. I'll see if you're right about this and try to do better by you next time. If not, you'll get my shoe up YOUR ASS. ;-)
LoB
Did I not say "Linux was really late to the game with regards to the pre-emptive kernel."? I see now that the original poster was probably talking about process based preemptive multi-tasking as you mentioned. And I guess that might be something to be proud of compared to DOS and DOS/Windows but when Linux hit the net, OS/2 and NT were on the market and they both had preemptive kernel based multitasking and THAT was/is pretty cool. UNIX and any 'real' OS has had pre-emptive process based multi-tasking for decades and any good OS Design book would teach it. Saying Microsoft copied that from UNIX or Linux is kinda pushing it IMO.
And I know Windows multi-tasking still sucks. GNU/Linux is better and OS/2 and BeOS are/were better still. And anything less than kernel based preemptive multi-tasking and process multi-threading is sooo 1990s IMO.
LoB
Not on this I'm not and I specifically noted that there was a difference between preemption and multi-threading. You should so some research on these subjects and here is one link to help you learn when Linux got preemption:
l
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3989618385.htm
LoB
Bad analogy. Gozer lost and the Marshmellow Man got roasted.
Gozer was the bad guy and yes, he lost.
The Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man was brought forth by Gozer but created/conceived by one of the good guys. The Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man was a bad guy and also lost.
That was exactly my point.
LoB
They've used this 'tactic' in the 90's when they told a handful of companies they'd license Win32 to them UNIX applications could be ported to Win32 and still run 'native' on UNIX AND Windows. The Microsoft magic happened once the big UNIX apps were ported to Win32. At that time, Microsoft pulled the rug out from under those handful of companies licensing Win32 by quadrupaling the licensing fee instantly. None of them, save one, could afford to do this and stil make a profit. The one company who could afford to pay this high price was also the only company Microsoft paid to port a Microsoft product to this Win32-on-UNIX runtime. You know, pay them so they can pay out and at the same time, kill off all the others legally. Bristel tried to take them to court but while winning, they also lost in that they were awarded only $1 because they could not prove Microsoft had a monopoly in the workstation market.
So this is a BAD deal and there probably is not a single example of any of these Microsoft partnerships ending up being good for the market or the 'partners'. And once again, it looks like Novell does NOT have the vision that Ray Noorda had for them. Sorry Novell but IMO, everyone should stay away from Suse like it had bird flu or something actually really threatening.
LoB
Microsoft has gone after "lunch money" before. When they were attempting to get as many school systems on Microsofts License 6 scheme, they used the BSA to trigger clauses in the Microsoft Windows EULA to force expensive audits on various school systems across the US. Many caved in and paid for MS License 6 instead of the 10's to 100's of thousands it would cost for th audit only to have a handful of illegal copies still cost them millions. But, a few fought back and dumped MS Windows for GNU/Linux and then started telling other school systems about it and how it was much cheaper than MS License 6 or the audit.
Google for Oregon school Linux Microsoft BSA or similar terms and you should get some hits on the topic.
Microsoft just might be forcing an 'event' in the market they really don't want to occur. The fact that they are even using the "L" word and signing/paying off a "L" word company is amazing enough and shows they are having a 'problem' with GNU/Linux and probably FOSS too. IMO.
LoB
Linux was really late to the game with regards to the pre-emptive kernel. I think OS/2 had it in the late 80's if not by 1992 with OS/2 v2.0. Microsoft also had it in MS Windows NT v3.0( v1.0 ) in 93' or 94'. The Linux kernel didn't get preemption til recently( maybe 2002 ).
I'm not sure when UNIX got preemptive multitasking but Solaris got multi-threading around the 95' or 96' timeframe. It was the first UNIX OS with this. OS/2 had this in the late 80's and Windows NT in the early 90's.
BTW, Microsoft has used BSD code in Windows and that license allows it. But I wouldn't doubt that there's also some GPL'd code in there too but it'll be years before we find that out. Probably DOJ vs MSFT v3.0.
LoB
Their shareholders should be pretty pissed at THAT kind of money making scheme. But me thinks it's more like their money making scheme with regard to WindowsCE and Xbox. You know, the scheme to take profits from the Windows monopoly( around $10 billion so far ) and keep the WindowsCE and Xbox products on the market so nobody else jumps in and grows to threaten the Windows monopoly/gravy train.
IMO, in the next few years we are going to see the public finally seeing Microsoft for what they really are. After all, FOSS and GNU/Linux must be doing SOMETHING or else Microsoft would not be doing so much in the public and financial markets regarding them. Unfortunately, I don't see very much of this in the United States so it must be going on elsewhere or outside of my sight.
'Gozer' has now, or will soon be, materialized and Novell could be our 'Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man'. Will it be IBM, Oracle, RedHat, or others who bust this party up? Or will the US become to knowns as "The land of Gozer", if it isn't already?
So, "Who you gonna call?".
LoB
Sure Bill, got it and thanks for the tip. Now go back to sleep and let reality set in.
LoB
yea, I think I purchased atleast one computer with MS DOS on it and once they hit monopoly status/control with MS DOS, the choice for consumers went out the windows. Look at the long long trail of court docs for all the lovely things Microsoft had done over the years to maintain that OS monopoly. IMO.
LoB
their future customers use patented MSFT technologies in GNOME, MONO, and SUSE Linux good enough? They're not even going to sue any ONE developer if that developer is only doing nonCOMMERCIAL FOSS work. Man, what do you/EU want from them/MSFT? ;-/
Good to see atleast one organization willing to, and with the power to, nail Microsoft for playing games with them regarding their monopoly power over the PC market. IMO.
LoB
but nooooo, they/AMD had some kind of 'deal' with Microsoft and these came with Windows installed and the BIOS would not let you put anything else on there. Why they were over $200 is beyond me since they were a small singleboard computer in a simple clamshell case. Not keyboard, display, or mouse.
Like I said, they should have been $100 and provide support for USB storage if you wanted to add more software( think flashfs or whatever Knoppix is using for overlaying the root filesystem ).
Too bad they didn't think of the exit strategy when signing on with Microsoft. IMO.
LoB
Obviously, when ever a Microsoft exec speaks, the only thing you can count on is hot air escaping their lips. But really, this does give some insight into how they will continue to fight FOSS. They've been trying the SUBSCRIPTION FEE approach for a few years already. The LOWER COST HARDWARE is an interesting one since it means subsidies for OEMs( like marketing dollars, etc? ) or maybe even more MS hardware. DOJ round 3 anyone? The Xbox is an example of this approach. Then there's the ADVERTISING model and this one should be quite interesting. Will your kids highschool class presentation have a banner ad for Target or Cialis running? Or better yet, will Microsoft subsidise THAT sector by initially advertising only Microsoft products/services with moving monopoly profits around inside the company? Hey, they've put millions of dollars in a fund to 'support' Windows vs Linux migration attempts and with billions in cash, they'll hardly feel the hit. IMO.
They've got a number of tricks up their sleeves and it seems Steve is somewhat willing to give hints as to what some of those tricks are. Too bad making reliable and secure software isn't mentioned...
LoB