As Intel made faster processors, Microsoft added more functionality, which exponentially grew in complexity given their poor kernel design.
The functionality was inevitable... Microsoft had to catch up to Unix, but the complexity was way beyond the average user.
Now, the average user needs a great deal of support and a sysadmin, that they can't afford (or didn't used to need to afford), so it's their brother-in-law or the guy down the hall who's into computers (even though it's not his job) who's got to fix Microsoft's problems. Microsoft support can't help... they don't have the proper education. Neither does the standard MSCE.
Microsoft has started saying "Software is support", but they don't yet understand this new mantra.
We're all used to hiring professionals to fix our appliances... but not our computers.
Large corporations hire armyies of sysadmins. Sun and IBM know how to sell them service and support.
Small businesses and individuals are going to have to get used to hiring professional support to maintain their computers.
>"In a capitalist society you always have the balance between ownership and competition..."
My point exactly. We agree entirely. With software, the proprietary lock-in means that we don't have a good model for competition. The "balance" you speak of does not exist for software competition. As the appellate court judges recognized in the Microsoft case: "how does this solution keep from replacing one monopoly with another"
Whether it's the Microsoft tyrannical rule of the PC desktop, or the "Unix Consortium" backstabbing; they all base their business model on the proprietary lock-in.
Open source is the only way to end the proprietary lock-in.
True, those individuals that are fundamentally critical to the Open Source movement don't directly make a cent off their efforts; Linus himself choose a job outside the movement (but his work inside has helped him with his career).
That's inconceivable to a lot of people (like you) who have never offered your time and experience for charity, or have never done something purely for recognition, or purely for expanding the state of the art.
If the open source developer community were just an anomaly, then it would have died by now. It hasn't. These people do, and will continue, to exist. Universities are crowded with folks like this. And because they do, we have a mechanism to offer a base system, with open standards and source, that any vendor can build atop and make money from...
But, the vendors have to "sharpen their pencils" and innovate quickly, because their competition can do the same thing!
That's why we enjoy Linux, Linus, and Tux as the "Open Source" poster children.
Open Source is so much more than Stallman, who takes his place on the socialist edge of the movement.
The issue and the Open Source movement isn't about "Free" (as in beer) or "Working Together" and "being against Microsoft"... it's about having true competition in Software.
Proprietary formats, standards, protocols, etc... lead to the "software vendor lock-in". Microsoft didn't invent this... they were doing ASCII along with everyone else when IBM was doing EBCDIC (Later, of course, MS with their monopoly would do TrueType while everybody else had already standardized to Postscript). They're also not the only software vendor to do this: every Unix consortium is comprised of vendors using one hand to shake, the other to stab in the back.
Open source is the solution... the only solution that will bring about competition in software. That's a capitalist ideal!
When Compaq, and others, reverse engineered the IBM PC Bios, the PC revolution was ignited: anybody could make a motherboard or an adapter card, or memory (The MS OS and the Intel CPU were the only proprietary pieces left atop this open hardware platform). The prices came down, the innovation moved at record pace.
...We don't refer to the open hardware PC revolution as "socialist".
There was a time when internet users seemed to be able to regulate themselves. Viri weren't being passed, Spam was not tolerated, crackers were academics without criminal intent, intellectual property was not violated, information was free, domain names were free and not squatted, IP addresses were abundant, and privacy was maintained.
Then the hoards moved online; like the land-grabs in the wild west. Good domain names are gone, nothing can stop spam (nobody in their right mind would post to a usenet news group anymore), script-kiddie crackers and new viri are abundant, using rights of privacy to gain anonymity, and copyrighted software and entertainment are traded for free, without respect for the copyright owner. Web pages have become more marketing than information (the marketing is free for you to consume, the information will cost you).
Laws and regulations have not been able to cope; they've (somewhat) maintained the privacy, but can do nothing about the criminal behavior.
With the lawlessness, bounty hunters have moved in, like those mentioned in:
http://slashdot.org/yro/01/02/21/1852252.shtml
This, along with court orders like squelching Napster by song titles and the MP3.com and DeCSS decisions, will threaten free speech, fair use, and the privacy we've strived to maintain.
Like the wild west, times will change, and once they do: there will be nothing left of the original state of the internet. Microsoft, with it's.net initiative, is moving to take control of the internet and make every port and protocol it's proprietary property.
>Software and business methods represent the blood, sweat, and toil of hard-working individuals
Whoa. Individuals don't get software patents, corporations do. No individual could afford the legal fees to fight off large corporations who want their patents. If nobody wants the patent, and it's useless, then an individual is allowed by the corporations to keep it;)
What we want in software is the same kind of competition and innovation we've seen in PC hardware.
PC hardware has been open since Compaq reverse-engineered the IBM PC Bios. Although the CPU and OS remained proprietary (and those two companies got enormous profits from their proprietary products atop open hardware), open hardware gave us the PC revolution.
Intel has been able to squelch competition for years: anybody who wants to make an Intel clone still has to pay royalties to Intel. That's why it's taken so long for competitors to beat intel at the PC CPU game.
Furthermore, if hardware patents were being granted the way software patents are being granted, for example: the first "video card", patented, would have ended competition in video cards, and we'd be at the mercy of that vendors rate of innovation, like we are with Microsoft's dictated rate of innovation.
Patents are not currently responsible for the lack of software competition (they've only been allowed since '98), but, they have the potential to replace closed-source proprietary standard lock-ins as the method to stop competition.
For Open Source, we could win the battle but loose the war: rid ourselves of the closed source OS, only to have patents replace closed source as the means to stop competition.
Lets give software competition a chance, and quit continuously locking one company into a monopoly position.
There was a time when internet users seemed to be able to regulate themselves. Viri weren't being passed, Spam was not tolerated, crackers were academics without criminal intent, intellectual property was not violated, information was free, domain names were free and not squatted, IP addresses were abundant, and privacy was maintained.
Then the hoards moved online; like the land-grabs in the wild west. Good domain names are gone, nothing can stop spam (nobody in their right mind would post to a usenet news group anymore), script-kiddie crackers and new viri are abundant, using rights of privacy to gain anonymity, and copyrighted software and entertainment are traded for free, without respect for the copyright owner. Web pages have become more marketing than information (the marketing is free for you to consume, the information will cost you).
Laws and regulations have not been able to cope; they've (somewhat) maintained the privacy, but can do nothing about the criminal behavior.
With the lawlessness, bounty hunters have moved in, like those mentioned in:
http://slashdot.org/yro/01/02/21/1852252.shtml
This, along with court orders like squelching Napster by song titles and the MP3.com and DeCss decisions, will threaten free speech, fair use, and the privacy we've strived to maintain.
Like the wild west, times will change, and once they do: there will be nothing left of the original state of the internet. Microsoft, with it's.net initiative, is moving to take control of the internet and make every port and protocol it's proprietary property.
I hope I'm not oversimplifying the history of the net, but I have a very different perspective than you show in your writing.
Your upbeat analysis seems to disregard most these issues, you seem to see the internet as it once was, but not where it's been going.
>AT&T and Sun said they only wanted to "unify" UNIX, but nobody else believed them.
I did;)
Your references are quite good... we may never know if Sun truly intended to unify or splinter.
Microsoft loves to point out this "Balkanization of Unix" to justify it's tyranical monopoly.
I have to agree (but find Open Source is the solution, not a tyranical monopoly).
Any consortium of vendors is at one moment patting each other in the back, and the next moment stabbing each other in the back.
Whether it's the tyranical monopoly or the divisive consortiums, the problem's they cause for a truly competitve computer/software marketplace is due to their desire to increase their bottom line by locking customers in to proprietary hardware/software.
If Microsoft weren't interested in it's profits, then it wouldn't use it's monopolistic position to put competitors out of business. Likewise, if consortium members didn't keep a hidden agenda for making profits from the groups protocol/standard/whatever, then we'd see complience and true competition between vendors (who can make the best/cheapest product, rather than who can better lock their customers in).
You can't fault them for the profit motive. You just can't put them in charge of the standards if you want to see healthy competition.
In Linux, trusted engineers make the specifications, open for all to comment and criticize. You can fault their judgement, but you can't fault their motives.
Letting Open Source itch scratchers drive the standards would be the best for competition in the computer marketplace.
Maybe that solution would have satisfied the appeal court judges.
>I decided to do a quick search for "Streams Environment" and "Windows". The result included products which use the Streams Environment on NT 3.5x and NT 4.0
You're putting words in my mouth. I did not say that "MS discontinued Streams but documented otherwise".
As I originally stated:
I paid for Microsoft service concerning the fact that the documentation Microsoft provided with NT4.0 concerning Streams was clearly wrong.
You and others said "it was discontinued"... I stated that I just quit using Windows altogether soon after I was put on hold for six months.
>...that doesn't justify the poor service you claim to have experienced.
Exactly the point of this thread. Thank you.
And the problems were not my user errors... the documentation was clearly wrong. As I recall, It looked as though Microsoft had prepared the documentation by changing all occurrences of "NT3.51" to "NT4.0", while they had actually changed many parts of the interface altogether.
Had this been open source, I could have referenced the source and figured out the changes myself... but that's another story.
>However, if you were as hostile and dishonest as you've been in your posts here...
The fellow assigned to the call, although poorly trained in the OS he was servicing, was very cordial. I'm adult enough to not kill the messenger; I too wanted this problem solved. We got along quite well, and he seemed truly interested in resolving the issue, even though the developer managers he was trying to get help from would not give him the time of day. He was as frustrated as I was but neither had harsh words for the other... in fact I think we commiserated over this issue. We got along quite well, and after the call was closed (with a refund), Microsoft called me to eveluate his performance: I told them he was very good, and just needed suport from developers.
You shouldn't be making such statements without a bit of knowledge. You work for Microsoft... just look up the call and see what transpired and publish it here!
Remember, I was trying to build a product. My hope was this problem would be solved. It probably was eventually, but by then, I'd quit using Windows altogether.
"Hostile" is too brazen an adjective for my behavior in this post. "Direct" would be more appropriate, but I won't mince words and accept "hostile" if that's what you prefer. Posts, in general, lack the inflections of normal speech, and can easily be taken wrong. You probably haven't been on the internet long enough to see a really hostile discussion; this isn't one of them;)
"Dishonest" is truly uncalled for. I am not a liar. I have eye witnessed the events I've relayed, and have communicated them as I saw them.
I believe you call me a liar to help you justify your company's behavior. I don't know you personally, but that's the only reason I can imagine that you would defend Microsoft's behavior and blame the victim instead.
>yes, I do work for Microsoft
...
>FALSE (Winsock is a public standard which can be implemented by anyone, and non-Microsoft implementations are available)
Now it makes sense... you know what you're saying hides the truth; you're just spouting the "innocent me" company line.
I guess if you make enough money you can convince yourself that your company's crimes are justified.
You keep trying to divert attention to "the open API" when I continuously reiterate that your source for that API is closed.
And that makes all the difference in the world, even if you won't admit it to yourself.
For example, before MS integrated Winsock and a PPP client into Windows, Trumpet had market share. They had a great product. The moment MS integrated Winsock and PPP into their OS, Trumpet was a has-been; anybody with a competing Winsock or winsock application atop windows can only fill small niche markets. You didn't have to do a better job, you just had to bundle it and you won.
MS's lawyers were obfuscating the trial last week saying "Every other monopoly in history has been built on acquisitions". The judges were even buying into this fact.
Microsoft didn't need to acquire companies to build their monopoly... all they had to do was 1) bundle their competing version of the product with the OS, and 2) create hooks between their applications and the OS that weren't exposed API's for outside developers.
Bundled Winsock and an integrated PPP (using non-exposed hooks into the OS) were all Microsoft needed to supplant Trumpet. Trumpet couldn't compete. They made the market for Microsoft, and had to fall on the sword for Microsoft.
This is the standard method MS uses to leverage its monopoly power to kill competition.
This is a bad example in that sockets and PPP should have been part of the OS all along -- they are a standard OS feature that MS wasn't supporting. It's a shame good companies die just because you weren't supplying the customer a necessary OS feature (which a browser is not, I digress).
If Microsoft ever feels it's platform is threatened by Altura or anybody making a competing Winsock, all they have to do is modify their proprietary source. It doesn't matter if they screw the open API in the process... everybody has to chase Microsofts tail and become compliant with MS's changes. Microsoft can and has changed it's API's like this. The net result is, customers blame the folks whose products got screwed then realize they have to buy the application from Microsoft. It's a viscous cycle, I'm sure Ballmer laughs all the way to the bank.
That's how Microsoft uses it's monopoly power to stop competition. That's documented in your conviction, and the "Findings of Fact" are not under contention in the appeal... only the remedy.
You can't admit you're wrong... then you'd have to admit your livelyhood is tainted. So, keep on those rose-colored glasses.
>Okay, now I see you don't know what 'proprietary' means. You can find the definition here:
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=pro prietary
What a hoot! LOL! I quote verbatim from the above link:
proprietary
...
2. In the language of hackers and users, inferior; implies a product not conforming to open-systems standards, and thus one that puts the customer at the mercy of a vendor who can inflate service and upgrade charges after the initial sale has locked the customer in.
Did you read the link you supplied?
I do (and did) know what proprietary means after all! Thankyou for clarifying that!
>which is one instance of a dissatisfied Windows developer
One of many; and MS is better at screwing outside developers than any other OS maker.
You keep trying to belittle a truly deplorable situation, and stick up for MS beyond all belief; any normal developer would not stand up for MS like this. Have you had a similar experience with another OS vendor? I've worked with Windows since 2.0 -- I have many similar experiences, but none over the last three years -- I don't do WinDoh's anymore. I've worked with a dozen OS's in the last 20 years, and have never experienced this bad of treatment from any other vendor.
Do you work for Microsoft? Why the AC? I've been noticing a lot of pro-microsoft trolls on/. lately. Is this a concerted effort from Ballmer?
>Altura developed a Winsock implementation for the Macintosh
So they have one instance where some misguided company has implemented a MS API on another OS (so many have tried and failed). Poor Altura now has obliged itself to endlessly chase Microsoft's tail.
>you don't know what 'proprietary' means.
You can mince words all you like, but MS controls the API, modified it from the industry standard, and keeps the source secret -- the standard way they abuse their power to assure that they maintain control of the desktop.
You've got to at least try to report the bug in some forum. If Microsoft's deaf ears are not accepting bug reports, then post it to the relevant newsgroup: you may be helping some other developer not waste their time as you did (and, you know Microsoft doesn't care how much time developers waste because of their bugs).
I partly agree with all those points. I too liked SunOS better than Solaris, but I was not against change just because it required that I learn something new. I kept existing projects on SunOS, and put new projects on Solaris, and eventually became as familiar with Solaris as I had been with SunOS (all of which I've forgotton, since I only work with Linux now -- that too took a learning curve).
The problem is, that FAQ doesn't support the claim that: "Solaris was Sun and AT&T's way to drive a wedge between the Unix vendors", vs. my claim that Solaris was an attempt to Unify the vendors.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I just need more proof before I change my mind, and your position (this assumes you're the same AC) is not discussed in that FAQ you mentioned.
They're guilty of more than incorrect documentation. After six months with an open service call, they couldn't even tell me "oops... that section of the documentation is a mistake -- we really don't support it any more".
This example was to give more anecdotal evidence concerning Dave's point about what Microsoft thinks of outside developers.
Back to your digression:
>Windows Sockets is not a proprietary API
Does it work on other operating systems?
Is it Open Source?
No and no, therefor it's proprietary... meant to lock your application onto their OS, and break your application at their whim.
>so this should not be surprising
I'm never surprised by this tactic; I've come to expect it from Microsoft.
Having used both Wince and Linux on an SH4, Linux performas much better and is more functional. Hitachi has plenty of developers working on this, and if Xybernaut uses Linux too, I can't see why they only talk of Wince.
>Microsoft's decision to convert NT from Streams to sockets was a move in the right direction
You're still missing the point: they said they supported it. It doesn't matter if streams are good or bad in your opinion. Saying they support something they don't shows what they think of developers; not admiting they don't support it makes it worse.
On your topic: both could have been supported. Finally, Winsock is a proprietary API. A proprietary API is not good for developers, only good for a company trying to lock you in to their closed platform.
>Funny, I looked in the Microsoft Knowledge Base...
Your "Knowledge Base" quote says nothing of discontinuing Streams support... it only says they made TCP/IP "better". For Microsoft, that usually means "Our OS is once again guaranteed not to work with any of our competitors applications".
The SDK/DDK documtntation supplied with NT4, after NT4 was released to the public, still claimed streams support.
As for Sun's switch to System V... that was an effort to unify with other Unix vendors. They worked long and hard on assuring compatibility between the old SUNOS and the new Solaris.
They didn't just change the API's to screw outside developers, as Microsoft does.
The problem with Winsock is it's proprietary API. Of course, that's not a problem for Microsoft; it helps assure that their customers are bound to their platform.
Although I don't agree that "Streams was a failure for everyone" -- it's a matter of opinion. In my case, I was using streams for portability of device drivers... a non-standard high speed serial interface that may contain IP data. Their RAS was the closest supported entry point, but they assumed you were using a slow serial interface and added many unnecessary software layers. But, I digress.
Anyway...
The point was, they said they supported it, and they didn't, and they didn't have enough respect for their customers to say "It really isn't supported".
I too now share Microsoft's lack of respect for their customers;)
>I remember the big hype of NT 3.5 was that they were dumping Streams and moving to the more standard (win)Socket interface.
Maybe it was dumped (I've never looked back to find out).
The problem was, all their relevant NT4 SDK/DDK documentation said it was still supported. I would have liked to hold their feet to the fire and make them implement the API's they said they exposed. But, I'm just a developer, and Microsoft hates developers (that don't develop apps for MS).
My guess is, it had been dumped, and they didn't bother to update the documentation.
Their streams support was lame. Nothing like Solaris. It wasn't just it's documented lack of robustness and completeness, but its extremely poor performance.
I think this was on purpose: they needed "Streams" support to get government contracts. Once they got the contracts, they could pull a bait-and-switch and force the idiots (who made the decision to switch to Microsoft) to cover their asses by rewriting their code to use Microsoft proprietary protocols.
I remember when NT4 first came out, trying to use their documented "Streams" support.
Nothing the MS NT4 documentation said was accurate. Files that were supposed to exist didn't, functionality claimed wasn't there.
So, I paid for Microsoft support on the issue.
The MS flunky couldn't answer my questions... said only developers could, and they were busy trying to release NT5 (which sliped schedule for another 3 years, finally released as W2K).
He said he would keep trying to get an answer, but after six months, I asked for my money back, and haven't used a Microsoft product since.
Energy prices went up at the same time. It makes more sense that energy starvation leads to recession (than a monopoly being busted up causes a recession).
One year later, two oil men are in charge of the government...
Now there's a conspiracy!
If Jackson's ruling caused the collapse, then the supreme courts ruling to allow the appeals instead of the "fast track" should have brought the economy back: without the "fast track", everybody agrees the case will be in court for another 10 years -- plenty of time for Microsoft to reposition.
>1. Before MS came along, computers were unaffordable. Now we all reap the benefits of a computer in every home.
This was not due to Microsoft, rather, Compaq and others reverse engineered the IBM bios.
With Open Hardware, anybody could build a motherboard or adapter card and the prices plummeted. Intel's processor and Microsoft's OS were the only portions of the IBM PC that couldn't be reverse engineered (note that AMD, et. al., pays license fees for it's Intel clones, and Wine is always one MS patch away from improper emulation).
>2. MS have consistently brought down prices -
After they destroy the competition, the prices go back up. The whole Office package used to sell (not upgrade) for $99. It's tripled in price. Their C compilers were under $100 until they crushed Borland.
Monopoly "Dumping" is illegal. It only benefits consumers for the short term. You're very short sighted on this issue.
>3....if you ask me if I want my secretary on the current state of the art Linux
It wouldn't be difficult if an OEM bundled Linux with the hardware, as is done with Windows. Furthermore, if they supported the distribution too (which they can do with Linux, and not with Windows), then they could provide a single point of contact for support: just like Sun, Apple, and IBM do on closed hardware platforms.
>4. Microsoft have benefitted the US economy. It really has. Compared with the UK, for instance, the strength of the US IT industry is vast - and much of this strength is due to Microsoft.
Think how much better the economy would have been if Microsoft didn't use it's monopoly powers to kill competition (see my other posts).
>5. Nearly all opposition to MS comes from jealous competitors.
The proof must come from competitors that tried but were crushed by unfair monopolistic practices... there are a lot more waiting in the wings.
>they can offer ISP provision, because they don't need highly paid admins. This is great news for the economy and great news for them.
These small businesses waste so much time because of the problems with Microsoft products and do-it-yourself service. The estimates of the cost of this are mind boggling. I often see presidents of small companies working out the software problems... spending weeks at a time overcoming Microsoft generated problems. Microsoft even admits that "Service is the future of software".
6. The fact is, as I have stated, there is a lot of jealousy and resentment out there - whereas the truth is that Microsoft produce damn fine software,
Yes we resent the fact that we must fix Windows for Bill -- he makes the money, we waste our time. It's not damn fine software until you can look at the source to see what it (or you) are doing wrong.
In Judge Jackson's "findings of fact" (which is not being contested by Microsoft), "API exposure" was discussed as a method to stop competition. Microsoft's tactic is to create OS hooks for it's applications that other applications can't use. For example: when IE could display a web page as the Windows background, that was not an exposed API; when VC instantiated a virtual machine for debugging, that was not an exposed API (that put the most popular C compiler at the time, Borland, out of business).
Not allowing competitors the same access to the OS kills the competition, hurts the consumer.
MS, through very coercive means (see the "findings of fact" concerning IBM, when they wanted to bundle Lotus with their OEM machines, as well as wanted to dual-boot W95 and OS/2 on their OEM machines) makes sure that only Microsoft apps come bundled with OEM machines. If folks don't want Lotus on their machine, they won't buy from IBM.
But, Microsoft assures customers don't even have the option.
Many say that giving IE away for free only helped the consumer. Between it being free and bundled, Netscape didn't have a chance. They immediately had to switch to a free model and get acquired.
Many past anti-trust cases concerned the monopolist "dumping" product at a loss in order to stop the competition. This is no different.
Dumping product to stop competition is not good for consumers in the long run.
In the appeal, Microsoft brought up the point that every other monopoly had been attained through acqusition. The judges thought this to be very interesting and hounded the DOJ attorney about this.
Anti-trust cases don't require the monopoly be made via acqusition.
In the Microsoft case, it's just too easy to put competitors out of business by unfair practices.
Slashdot Mirror
As Intel made faster processors, Microsoft added more functionality, which exponentially grew in complexity given their poor kernel design.
The functionality was inevitable... Microsoft had to catch up to Unix, but the complexity was way beyond the average user.
Now, the average user needs a great deal of support and a sysadmin, that they can't afford (or didn't used to need to afford), so it's their brother-in-law or the guy down the hall who's into computers (even though it's not his job) who's got to fix Microsoft's problems. Microsoft support can't help... they don't have the proper education. Neither does the standard MSCE.
Microsoft has started saying "Software is support", but they don't yet understand this new mantra.
We're all used to hiring professionals to fix our appliances... but not our computers.
Large corporations hire armyies of sysadmins. Sun and IBM know how to sell them service and support.
Small businesses and individuals are going to have to get used to hiring professional support to maintain their computers.
>"In a capitalist society you always have the balance between ownership and competition..."
My point exactly. We agree entirely. With software, the proprietary lock-in means that we don't have a good model for competition. The "balance" you speak of does not exist for software competition. As the appellate court judges recognized in the Microsoft case: "how does this solution keep from replacing one monopoly with another"
Whether it's the Microsoft tyrannical rule of the PC desktop, or the "Unix Consortium" backstabbing; they all base their business model on the proprietary lock-in.
Open source is the only way to end the proprietary lock-in.
True, those individuals that are fundamentally critical to the Open Source movement don't directly make a cent off their efforts; Linus himself choose a job outside the movement (but his work inside has helped him with his career).
That's inconceivable to a lot of people (like you) who have never offered your time and experience for charity, or have never done something purely for recognition, or purely for expanding the state of the art.
If the open source developer community were just an anomaly, then it would have died by now. It hasn't. These people do, and will continue, to exist. Universities are crowded with folks like this. And because they do, we have a mechanism to offer a base system, with open standards and source, that any vendor can build atop and make money from...
But, the vendors have to "sharpen their pencils" and innovate quickly, because their competition can do the same thing!
That brings competition to software!
That's why we enjoy Linux, Linus, and Tux as the "Open Source" poster children.
Open Source is so much more than Stallman, who takes his place on the socialist edge of the movement.
The issue and the Open Source movement isn't about "Free" (as in beer) or "Working Together" and "being against Microsoft"... it's about having true competition in Software.
Proprietary formats, standards, protocols, etc... lead to the "software vendor lock-in". Microsoft didn't invent this... they were doing ASCII along with everyone else when IBM was doing EBCDIC (Later, of course, MS with their monopoly would do TrueType while everybody else had already standardized to Postscript). They're also not the only software vendor to do this: every Unix consortium is comprised of vendors using one hand to shake, the other to stab in the back.
Open source is the solution... the only solution that will bring about competition in software. That's a capitalist ideal!
When Compaq, and others, reverse engineered the IBM PC Bios, the PC revolution was ignited: anybody could make a motherboard or an adapter card, or memory (The MS OS and the Intel CPU were the only proprietary pieces left atop this open hardware platform). The prices came down, the innovation moved at record pace.
...We don't refer to the open hardware PC revolution as "socialist".
Not to be cynical, but...
.net initiative, is moving to take control of the internet and make every port and protocol it's proprietary property.
There was a time when internet users seemed to be able to regulate themselves. Viri weren't being passed, Spam was not tolerated, crackers were academics without criminal intent, intellectual property was not violated, information was free, domain names were free and not squatted, IP addresses were abundant, and privacy was maintained.
Then the hoards moved online; like the land-grabs in the wild west. Good domain names are gone, nothing can stop spam (nobody in their right mind would post to a usenet news group anymore), script-kiddie crackers and new viri are abundant, using rights of privacy to gain anonymity, and copyrighted software and entertainment are traded for free, without respect for the copyright owner. Web pages have become more marketing than information (the marketing is free for you to consume, the information will cost you).
Laws and regulations have not been able to cope; they've (somewhat) maintained the privacy, but can do nothing about the criminal behavior.
With the lawlessness, bounty hunters have moved in, like those mentioned in:
http://slashdot.org/yro/01/02/21/1852252.shtml
This, along with court orders like squelching Napster by song titles and the MP3.com and DeCSS decisions, will threaten free speech, fair use, and the privacy we've strived to maintain.
Like the wild west, times will change, and once they do: there will be nothing left of the original state of the internet. Microsoft, with it's
>Software and business methods represent the blood, sweat, and toil of hard-working individuals
;)
Whoa. Individuals don't get software patents, corporations do. No individual could afford the legal fees to fight off large corporations who want their patents. If nobody wants the patent, and it's useless, then an individual is allowed by the corporations to keep it
What we want in software is the same kind of competition and innovation we've seen in PC hardware.
PC hardware has been open since Compaq reverse-engineered the IBM PC Bios. Although the CPU and OS remained proprietary (and those two companies got enormous profits from their proprietary products atop open hardware), open hardware gave us the PC revolution.
Intel has been able to squelch competition for years: anybody who wants to make an Intel clone still has to pay royalties to Intel. That's why it's taken so long for competitors to beat intel at the PC CPU game.
Furthermore, if hardware patents were being granted the way software patents are being granted, for example: the first "video card", patented, would have ended competition in video cards, and we'd be at the mercy of that vendors rate of innovation, like we are with Microsoft's dictated rate of innovation.
Patents are not currently responsible for the lack of software competition (they've only been allowed since '98), but, they have the potential to replace closed-source proprietary standard lock-ins as the method to stop competition.
For Open Source, we could win the battle but loose the war: rid ourselves of the closed source OS, only to have patents replace closed source as the means to stop competition.
Lets give software competition a chance, and quit continuously locking one company into a monopoly position.
Not to be cynical, but...
.net initiative, is moving to take control of the internet and make every port and protocol it's proprietary property.
There was a time when internet users seemed to be able to regulate themselves. Viri weren't being passed, Spam was not tolerated, crackers were academics without criminal intent, intellectual property was not violated, information was free, domain names were free and not squatted, IP addresses were abundant, and privacy was maintained.
Then the hoards moved online; like the land-grabs in the wild west. Good domain names are gone, nothing can stop spam (nobody in their right mind would post to a usenet news group anymore), script-kiddie crackers and new viri are abundant, using rights of privacy to gain anonymity, and copyrighted software and entertainment are traded for free, without respect for the copyright owner. Web pages have become more marketing than information (the marketing is free for you to consume, the information will cost you).
Laws and regulations have not been able to cope; they've (somewhat) maintained the privacy, but can do nothing about the criminal behavior.
With the lawlessness, bounty hunters have moved in, like those mentioned in:
http://slashdot.org/yro/01/02/21/1852252.shtml
This, along with court orders like squelching Napster by song titles and the MP3.com and DeCss decisions, will threaten free speech, fair use, and the privacy we've strived to maintain.
Like the wild west, times will change, and once they do: there will be nothing left of the original state of the internet. Microsoft, with it's
I hope I'm not oversimplifying the history of the net, but I have a very different perspective than you show in your writing.
Your upbeat analysis seems to disregard most these issues, you seem to see the internet as it once was, but not where it's been going.
>AT&T and Sun said they only wanted to "unify" UNIX, but nobody else believed them.
;)
I did
Your references are quite good... we may never know if Sun truly intended to unify or splinter.
Microsoft loves to point out this "Balkanization of Unix" to justify it's tyranical monopoly.
I have to agree (but find Open Source is the solution, not a tyranical monopoly).
Any consortium of vendors is at one moment patting each other in the back, and the next moment stabbing each other in the back.
Whether it's the tyranical monopoly or the divisive consortiums, the problem's they cause for a truly competitve computer/software marketplace is due to their desire to increase their bottom line by locking customers in to proprietary hardware/software.
If Microsoft weren't interested in it's profits, then it wouldn't use it's monopolistic position to put competitors out of business. Likewise, if consortium members didn't keep a hidden agenda for making profits from the groups protocol/standard/whatever, then we'd see complience and true competition between vendors (who can make the best/cheapest product, rather than who can better lock their customers in).
You can't fault them for the profit motive. You just can't put them in charge of the standards if you want to see healthy competition.
In Linux, trusted engineers make the specifications, open for all to comment and criticize. You can fault their judgement, but you can't fault their motives.
Letting Open Source itch scratchers drive the standards would be the best for competition in the computer marketplace.
Maybe that solution would have satisfied the appeal court judges.
>I decided to do a quick search for "Streams Environment" and "Windows". The result included products which use the Streams Environment on NT 3.5x and NT 4.0
...that doesn't justify the poor service you claim to have experienced.
;)
You're putting words in my mouth. I did not say that "MS discontinued Streams but documented otherwise".
As I originally stated:
I paid for Microsoft service concerning the fact that the documentation Microsoft provided with NT4.0 concerning Streams was clearly wrong.
You and others said "it was discontinued"... I stated that I just quit using Windows altogether soon after I was put on hold for six months.
>
Exactly the point of this thread. Thank you.
And the problems were not my user errors... the documentation was clearly wrong. As I recall, It looked as though Microsoft had prepared the documentation by changing all occurrences of "NT3.51" to "NT4.0", while they had actually changed many parts of the interface altogether.
Had this been open source, I could have referenced the source and figured out the changes myself... but that's another story.
>However, if you were as hostile and dishonest as you've been in your posts here...
The fellow assigned to the call, although poorly trained in the OS he was servicing, was very cordial. I'm adult enough to not kill the messenger; I too wanted this problem solved. We got along quite well, and he seemed truly interested in resolving the issue, even though the developer managers he was trying to get help from would not give him the time of day. He was as frustrated as I was but neither had harsh words for the other... in fact I think we commiserated over this issue. We got along quite well, and after the call was closed (with a refund), Microsoft called me to eveluate his performance: I told them he was very good, and just needed suport from developers.
You shouldn't be making such statements without a bit of knowledge. You work for Microsoft... just look up the call and see what transpired and publish it here!
Remember, I was trying to build a product. My hope was this problem would be solved. It probably was eventually, but by then, I'd quit using Windows altogether.
"Hostile" is too brazen an adjective for my behavior in this post. "Direct" would be more appropriate, but I won't mince words and accept "hostile" if that's what you prefer. Posts, in general, lack the inflections of normal speech, and can easily be taken wrong. You probably haven't been on the internet long enough to see a really hostile discussion; this isn't one of them
"Dishonest" is truly uncalled for. I am not a liar. I have eye witnessed the events I've relayed, and have communicated them as I saw them.
I believe you call me a liar to help you justify your company's behavior. I don't know you personally, but that's the only reason I can imagine that you would defend Microsoft's behavior and blame the victim instead.
>yes, I do work for Microsoft
...
>FALSE (Winsock is a public standard which can be implemented by anyone, and non-Microsoft implementations are available)
Now it makes sense... you know what you're saying hides the truth; you're just spouting the "innocent me" company line.
I guess if you make enough money you can convince yourself that your company's crimes are justified.
You keep trying to divert attention to "the open API" when I continuously reiterate that your source for that API is closed.
And that makes all the difference in the world, even if you won't admit it to yourself.
For example, before MS integrated Winsock and a PPP client into Windows, Trumpet had market share. They had a great product. The moment MS integrated Winsock and PPP into their OS, Trumpet was a has-been; anybody with a competing Winsock or winsock application atop windows can only fill small niche markets. You didn't have to do a better job, you just had to bundle it and you won.
MS's lawyers were obfuscating the trial last week saying "Every other monopoly in history has been built on acquisitions". The judges were even buying into this fact.
Microsoft didn't need to acquire companies to build their monopoly... all they had to do was 1) bundle their competing version of the product with the OS, and 2) create hooks between their applications and the OS that weren't exposed API's for outside developers.
Bundled Winsock and an integrated PPP (using non-exposed hooks into the OS) were all Microsoft needed to supplant Trumpet. Trumpet couldn't compete. They made the market for Microsoft, and had to fall on the sword for Microsoft.
This is the standard method MS uses to leverage its monopoly power to kill competition.
This is a bad example in that sockets and PPP should have been part of the OS all along -- they are a standard OS feature that MS wasn't supporting. It's a shame good companies die just because you weren't supplying the customer a necessary OS feature (which a browser is not, I digress).
If Microsoft ever feels it's platform is threatened by Altura or anybody making a competing Winsock, all they have to do is modify their proprietary source. It doesn't matter if they screw the open API in the process... everybody has to chase Microsofts tail and become compliant with MS's changes. Microsoft can and has changed it's API's like this. The net result is, customers blame the folks whose products got screwed then realize they have to buy the application from Microsoft. It's a viscous cycle, I'm sure Ballmer laughs all the way to the bank.
That's how Microsoft uses it's monopoly power to stop competition. That's documented in your conviction, and the "Findings of Fact" are not under contention in the appeal... only the remedy.
You can't admit you're wrong... then you'd have to admit your livelyhood is tainted. So, keep on those rose-colored glasses.
>Okay, now I see you don't know what 'proprietary' means. You can find the definition here:o prietary
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=pr
What a hoot! LOL! I quote verbatim from the above link:
proprietary
...
2. In the language of hackers and users, inferior; implies a product not conforming to open-systems standards, and thus one that puts the customer at the mercy of a vendor who can inflate service and upgrade charges after the initial sale has locked the customer in.
Did you read the link you supplied?
I do (and did) know what proprietary means after all! Thankyou for clarifying that!
>which is one instance of a dissatisfied Windows developer
/. lately. Is this a concerted effort from Ballmer?
One of many; and MS is better at screwing outside developers than any other OS maker.
You keep trying to belittle a truly deplorable situation, and stick up for MS beyond all belief; any normal developer would not stand up for MS like this. Have you had a similar experience with another OS vendor? I've worked with Windows since 2.0 -- I have many similar experiences, but none over the last three years -- I don't do WinDoh's anymore. I've worked with a dozen OS's in the last 20 years, and have never experienced this bad of treatment from any other vendor.
Do you work for Microsoft? Why the AC? I've been noticing a lot of pro-microsoft trolls on
>Altura developed a Winsock implementation for the Macintosh
So they have one instance where some misguided company has implemented a MS API on another OS (so many have tried and failed). Poor Altura now has obliged itself to endlessly chase Microsoft's tail.
>you don't know what 'proprietary' means.
You can mince words all you like, but MS controls the API, modified it from the industry standard, and keeps the source secret -- the standard way they abuse their power to assure that they maintain control of the desktop.
You've got to at least try to report the bug in some forum. If Microsoft's deaf ears are not accepting bug reports, then post it to the relevant newsgroup: you may be helping some other developer not waste their time as you did (and, you know Microsoft doesn't care how much time developers waste because of their bugs).
>Maybe you'll believe the FAQ?
I partly agree with all those points. I too liked SunOS better than Solaris, but I was not against change just because it required that I learn something new. I kept existing projects on SunOS, and put new projects on Solaris, and eventually became as familiar with Solaris as I had been with SunOS (all of which I've forgotton, since I only work with Linux now -- that too took a learning curve).
The problem is, that FAQ doesn't support the claim that: "Solaris was Sun and AT&T's way to drive a wedge between the Unix vendors", vs. my claim that Solaris was an attempt to Unify the vendors.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I just need more proof before I change my mind, and your position (this assumes you're the same AC) is not discussed in that FAQ you mentioned.
>I don't defend incorrect documentation
They're guilty of more than incorrect documentation. After six months with an open service call, they couldn't even tell me "oops... that section of the documentation is a mistake -- we really don't support it any more".
This example was to give more anecdotal evidence concerning Dave's point about what Microsoft thinks of outside developers.
Back to your digression:
>Windows Sockets is not a proprietary API
Does it work on other operating systems?
Is it Open Source?
No and no, therefor it's proprietary... meant to lock your application onto their OS, and break your application at their whim.
>so this should not be surprising
I'm never surprised by this tactic; I've come to expect it from Microsoft.
Why don't they consider Linux for the SH4:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/linuxsh/
Having used both Wince and Linux on an SH4, Linux performas much better and is more functional. Hitachi has plenty of developers working on this, and if Xybernaut uses Linux too, I can't see why they only talk of Wince.
>Microsoft's decision to convert NT from Streams to sockets was a move in the right direction
You're still missing the point: they said they supported it. It doesn't matter if streams are good or bad in your opinion. Saying they support something they don't shows what they think of developers; not admiting they don't support it makes it worse.
On your topic: both could have been supported. Finally, Winsock is a proprietary API. A proprietary API is not good for developers, only good for a company trying to lock you in to their closed platform.
>PS If you think the transition from SunOS 4 (BSD) to SunOS 5 (System V) was painless, I suspect you weren't a SunOS 4 user.
On the contrary, I was a user.
Do you have any confirmation to back up your version of the story? I'd be interested to know if this were true.
>Funny, I looked in the Microsoft Knowledge Base...
Your "Knowledge Base" quote says nothing of discontinuing Streams support... it only says they made TCP/IP "better". For Microsoft, that usually means "Our OS is once again guaranteed not to work with any of our competitors applications".
The SDK/DDK documtntation supplied with NT4, after NT4 was released to the public, still claimed streams support.
As for Sun's switch to System V... that was an effort to unify with other Unix vendors. They worked long and hard on assuring compatibility between the old SUNOS and the new Solaris.
They didn't just change the API's to screw outside developers, as Microsoft does.
The problem with Winsock is it's proprietary API. Of course, that's not a problem for Microsoft; it helps assure that their customers are bound to their platform.
;)
Although I don't agree that "Streams was a failure for everyone" -- it's a matter of opinion. In my case, I was using streams for portability of device drivers... a non-standard high speed serial interface that may contain IP data. Their RAS was the closest supported entry point, but they assumed you were using a slow serial interface and added many unnecessary software layers. But, I digress.
Anyway...
The point was, they said they supported it, and they didn't, and they didn't have enough respect for their customers to say "It really isn't supported".
I too now share Microsoft's lack of respect for their customers
>I remember the big hype of NT 3.5 was that they were dumping Streams and moving to the more standard (win)Socket interface.
Maybe it was dumped (I've never looked back to find out).
The problem was, all their relevant NT4 SDK/DDK documentation said it was still supported. I would have liked to hold their feet to the fire and make them implement the API's they said they exposed. But, I'm just a developer, and Microsoft hates developers (that don't develop apps for MS).
My guess is, it had been dumped, and they didn't bother to update the documentation.
Their streams support was lame. Nothing like Solaris. It wasn't just it's documented lack of robustness and completeness, but its extremely poor performance.
I think this was on purpose: they needed "Streams" support to get government contracts. Once they got the contracts, they could pull a bait-and-switch and force the idiots (who made the decision to switch to Microsoft) to cover their asses by rewriting their code to use Microsoft proprietary protocols.
Dave sez: "Microsoft says they love developers"
I have an example:
I remember when NT4 first came out, trying to use their documented "Streams" support.
Nothing the MS NT4 documentation said was accurate. Files that were supposed to exist didn't, functionality claimed wasn't there.
So, I paid for Microsoft support on the issue.
The MS flunky couldn't answer my questions... said only developers could, and they were busy trying to release NT5 (which sliped schedule for another 3 years, finally released as W2K).
He said he would keep trying to get an answer, but after six months, I asked for my money back, and haven't used a Microsoft product since.
Energy prices went up at the same time. It makes more sense that energy starvation leads to recession (than a monopoly being busted up causes a recession).
One year later, two oil men are in charge of the government...
Now there's a conspiracy!
If Jackson's ruling caused the collapse, then the supreme courts ruling to allow the appeals instead of the "fast track" should have brought the economy back: without the "fast track", everybody agrees the case will be in court for another 10 years -- plenty of time for Microsoft to reposition.
>1. Before MS came along, computers were unaffordable. Now we all reap the benefits of a computer in every home.
...if you ask me if I want my secretary on the current state of the art Linux
This was not due to Microsoft, rather, Compaq and others reverse engineered the IBM bios.
With Open Hardware, anybody could build a motherboard or adapter card and the prices plummeted. Intel's processor and Microsoft's OS were the only portions of the IBM PC that couldn't be reverse engineered (note that AMD, et. al., pays license fees for it's Intel clones, and Wine is always one MS patch away from improper emulation).
>2. MS have consistently brought down prices -
After they destroy the competition, the prices go back up. The whole Office package used to sell (not upgrade) for $99. It's tripled in price. Their C compilers were under $100 until they crushed Borland.
Monopoly "Dumping" is illegal. It only benefits consumers for the short term. You're very short sighted on this issue.
>3.
It wouldn't be difficult if an OEM bundled Linux with the hardware, as is done with Windows. Furthermore, if they supported the distribution too (which they can do with Linux, and not with Windows), then they could provide a single point of contact for support: just like Sun, Apple, and IBM do on closed hardware platforms.
>4. Microsoft have benefitted the US economy. It really has. Compared with the UK, for instance, the strength of the US IT industry is vast - and much of this strength is due to Microsoft.
Think how much better the economy would have been if Microsoft didn't use it's monopoly powers to kill competition (see my other posts).
>5. Nearly all opposition to MS comes from jealous competitors.
The proof must come from competitors that tried but were crushed by unfair monopolistic practices... there are a lot more waiting in the wings.
>they can offer ISP provision, because they don't need highly paid admins. This is great news for the economy and great news for them.
These small businesses waste so much time because of the problems with Microsoft products and do-it-yourself service. The estimates of the cost of this are mind boggling. I often see presidents of small companies working out the software problems... spending weeks at a time overcoming Microsoft generated problems. Microsoft even admits that "Service is the future of software".
6. The fact is, as I have stated, there is a lot of jealousy and resentment out there - whereas the truth is that Microsoft produce damn fine software,
Yes we resent the fact that we must fix Windows for Bill -- he makes the money, we waste our time. It's not damn fine software until you can look at the source to see what it (or you) are doing wrong.
>...Navigator isn't an operating system
A browser becomes a platform via java and net based applications, like hotmail and anywareoffice.
Jackson's point was that Microsoft was killing Netscape to assure that Netscape wouldn't become a platform.
Now that IE controls the market, Microsoft will allow it to become a platform.
The DOJ attorney fought this point very poorly.
>Were consumers demonstrably harmed by Microsoft?
In Judge Jackson's "findings of fact" (which is not being contested by Microsoft), "API exposure" was discussed as a method to stop competition. Microsoft's tactic is to create OS hooks for it's applications that other applications can't use. For example: when IE could display a web page as the Windows background, that was not an exposed API; when VC instantiated a virtual machine for debugging, that was not an exposed API (that put the most popular C compiler at the time, Borland, out of business).
Not allowing competitors the same access to the OS kills the competition, hurts the consumer.
MS, through very coercive means (see the "findings of fact" concerning IBM, when they wanted to bundle Lotus with their OEM machines, as well as wanted to dual-boot W95 and OS/2 on their OEM machines) makes sure that only Microsoft apps come bundled with OEM machines. If folks don't want Lotus on their machine, they won't buy from IBM.
But, Microsoft assures customers don't even have the option.
Many say that giving IE away for free only helped the consumer. Between it being free and bundled, Netscape didn't have a chance. They immediately had to switch to a free model and get acquired.
Many past anti-trust cases concerned the monopolist "dumping" product at a loss in order to stop the competition. This is no different.
Dumping product to stop competition is not good for consumers in the long run.
In the appeal, Microsoft brought up the point that every other monopoly had been attained through acqusition. The judges thought this to be very interesting and hounded the DOJ attorney about this.
Anti-trust cases don't require the monopoly be made via acqusition.
In the Microsoft case, it's just too easy to put competitors out of business by unfair practices.