Why The U.S. Surrendered To Microsoft 411
hoggardb writes: "The Nation has an excellent column by Eben Moglen, general counsel of the FSF, on why the U.S. has surrendered to Microsoft: because the big campaign contributors like Hollywood and PC manufacturers now want Microsoft to stay a monopoly." Not everyone will agree about the PC makers, but the Hollywood argument is harder to sidestep. The free-marketeer in me especially likes the last paragraph -- Moglen didn't get to be general counsel of the FSF for nothing.
Hollywood? (Score:2)
Re:Hollywood? (Score:3, Insightful)
They want maximum revenue with minimum cost, and they don't really care about the ethics of getting there.
"One for us, none for you; two for us, none for you..."
Re:Hollywood? (Score:2)
Re:Hollywood? (Score:2)
This is true; but what exactly do you think that an association (the first 'A') is? Who do you think the MPAA works for? Who do you think pays their bills? If 'Hollywood' did not support the MPAA, it would cease to exist.
Talk about "spewing worthless critical shit"... you take the cake.
Re:Hollywood? (Score:2)
Re:Hollywood? (Score:2)
They rely completely on "Hollywood" to pay their mortgages and build up their kids' college funds. Don't be so sure that they support your idealism
Feel free to provide a reference to a statement by any animation studio that they oppose the stand of the MPAA, and want to see their end product being watched on Linux.
Re:Hollywood? (Score:2)
Yes, for *production*. MSWindows, and its Monopoly will be aid them in extending their content monopoly into the PC world... with few bumps.
Why M$ won't desapear any time soon ... (Score:4, Insightful)
They say at the end of the article. The truth however, and saddly, is diferent. While it is true that MS is maybe at one of its more important moments, they are doing very well and none of the threats to its monoply will stop them, they will continue. Why? Because of the perception of the avareage american computer user.
If any of us see in what the marketing is focused on any computer related thing we will find one common denominator: Ease of use.
What does this mean? That the public does not want to spend time thinking or learning, thus the people won't assimilate a product that is differnet from what is mainstream, the companies , on the other hand, can - and do- tell the "people" what they want, ans that is what MS has always done, in Linux is the otherway around: people think of what they want. It is sad, but that does not mean that Linux will disapear or become weak because there are people who read slashdot and actualy enjoy thinking. If the whole effort from corporations to make everybody's life 'easier' by taking away the efforrt you put in thinking companies like MS will always exist. And the minority, who is against the conventions of 'mainstream' will keep on using Linux.
That's why Linux as a social tool is far more important than Linux as a technological tool.
Re:Why M$ won't desapear any time soon ... (Score:2, Funny)
This, combined with a comparable pricetag to the other commercial products makes Microsoft a good all around choice for business.
I've tried to convince my company to switch at least some of their applications to linux, but the cons always outweigh the pros in managements eyes. Support is always an issue, and to them an army of programmers who code for the love of coding simply cannot compete with the paid drones of Microsoft. Besides, nobody gets fired for buying MS
If Linux only had all the pretty pictures of NT, the argument might have gone the other way. Thus is the Dilbert rule.
Re:Why M$ won't desapear any time soon ... (Score:5, Interesting)
...
The really sad thing is, that only the minority are thinking. In a democracy, the majority decides, and that's how you get a country where thinking is outlawed.
Re:Why M$ won't desapear any time soon ... (Score:2)
That was just an extrapolation, and I sincerely hope we will never have the example.
The minority of which you speak is thinking all right, thinking about their OS and not their work! Wake up, TeknoHog, the important thing about work is getting it done, not the platform on which you do it. Microsoft has spent years studying and improving their user interface. Most people can sit down at a Windows machine and start working within minutes. That's WORKING, not tweaking, not recompiling, not reading the MAN pages. THAT'S why purchasing departments buy Microsoft products, not the freeware flavor of the day.
Agreed, already wrote another comment [slashdot.org] on that.
In fact you sometimes have to tweak, recompile and RTFM just to get the job done. A good example of this is what /. did [slashdot.org] during the Tuesday news flood.
Re:Why M$ won't desapear any time soon ... (Score:2, Insightful)
You speak about "ease of use" as if that is a bad thing. Boiling a kettle is a pretty easy task, does that mean everyone should rush out and buy more complicated kettles. Would we then say that these people are more intelligent? Hell no, you'd take the piss out of them for being idiotic.
> the public does not want to spend
> time thinking or learning
The idea that only Linux users think, while users of Microsoft products are sheep, is arrogant in the extreme. You could just as easily argue the opposite point, that many Linux users are sheep for jumping on the aint-it-cool free open-source anti-microsoft bandwagon.
Why should anyone have to learn about patching kernels, editing
Isn't 'ease of use' the main thing that Red Hat, Mandrake, Slackware, Debian, etc, are all working towards? Does that mean that we now have to go off and find an even more complex OS to be worthy intelligent computer users?
And before everyone rushes to condemn me, I just would like to point out that I use Linux, Windows 2000 and Mac OS X.
Re:Why M$ won't desapear any time soon ... (Score:2)
Well, Linux is a pretty hard bandwagon to jump onto.
Really free? (Score:3, Insightful)
The best software in the world continues to be free. Free as in free speech: free to use, free to copy, free to modify.
Yes, free so long as you don't create any software that might be in violation of the DMCA and you end up in jail. This seems like bit of overly optimistic cheerleading rather than a realistic assessment of the situation. Whatever happens to Microsoft, it hardly makes a difference if Hollywood, the RIAA, etc. are working to restrict our freedoms through the legislatures and the courts.
Re:Really free? (Score:2)
Smoking crack? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummm... no. While linux companies crumble and fall apart, dying to figure out a way to make a buck off of something free, Microsoft continues to do well. (Have they ever even had a "round of layoffs" in their history?)
I agree with the author's points about why the gubment is doing what it's doing, and why all the companies that wanted a piece of microsoft are now backing it. But I think he's deluded if he thinks anything is going to change for the better, in terms of software choice for the consumer.
PS: If anyone has any MP3's (or any other un-hindered audio format) on their disk in ~10 years, I'll change my name.
Re:Smoking crack? (Score:3, Funny)
I'm going to make it a point to save at least one MP3, just so I can you on that.
Re:Smoking crack? (Score:2)
- PS: If anyone has any MP3's (or any other un-hindered audio format) on their disk in ~10 years, I'll change my name.
I'm going to make it a point to save at least one MP3, just so I can you on that.The mists of time roll back in my crystal ball, and I see... your application for a license to run a non-government approved OS is refused, you decide that it's better to comply than go to jail, and when you try to copy your MP3 from backup media to your CPRM hard drive, Windows 2010 detects and blocks it while simultaneously sending your details to the RIAA through your (mandatory) net connection.
And no, I am not joking.
Re:Smoking crack? (Score:2)
Yes, but Linux continues to do well. As does KDE, XFree86, Intel, Kingston, Maxtor, whoever made my case, and that equals a working computer for me. And each of them will do well with or without Microsoft in the pool.
Maybe RMS's vision has won, and all that's left is improvement.
--
Evan
Re:Smoking crack? (Score:2)
I believe RMS's vision was that of a Free operating system (Free as in Freedom) that you can use. Basically, access and permission to alter source. That sounds like a fairly real world concept, and if you dispute that it has happened, how so?
--
Evan "My Daddy always taught me not to mix code and politics" E.
Re:Smoking crack? (Score:2)
Re:Smoking crack? (Score:2)
In 10 years, you'll be running a government approved operating system (Windows 2010, MacOS 16, GovIx 4.0), and it won't only trash your MP3, it'll use your (mandatory) net connection to whistle up an RIAA goon squad.
This isn't meant to be funny. We're hearing this language right here and now.
Where Government Interests Lie (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that we can offer no incentive, as individuals, for the government not to listen! Even if we elected the least corrupted politican at each election, that doesn't prevent the next one from being influenced in the same way as the previous. All the emails, all the letters, all the faxes and phone calls do not carry the weight of a casual million dollars from a money interest group. The law does say, after all, that at some point, the politician can keep the money once out of office so where is the motivation not to listen to the money?
But now we are in a position of asking the very people who profit from this system of government to stop profiting from it. I'm a very imaginitive guy, but I cannot begin to imagine how we can persuade against this. They "vote themselves raises." Who wouldn't vote himself a raise?
Is it possible, then, that we can sue the government through the court system to stop taking PAC and other money? I'm sorry if that means campaigns will not be as flashy as they have been in the past... there are other ways to get advertising out anyway. (If a PAC 'really' believes in the candidate, then it would buy the advertising directly so that we can see conclusively that campaign funds go to the campaigns.) In a government of checks and balances, is it even possible that we could ask the court system to make illegal this obviously corrupting process?
Re:Where Government Interests Lie (Score:2)
Re:Where Government Interests Lie (Score:2)
These days the states just jockey for their cut of FICA taxes and tobacco money.
Re:Where Government Interests Lie (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not pointing out that there is a causation-correlation problem. I am pointing out that there is a problem with motivation.
We have politicians accepting "campaign money" that is later available to them as personal money. That's a fact. Who can deny it? Show it to me that it's not. That is motivation. It is inappropriate motivation. And even if NO politician has ever bowed to that motivation, it's still there and needs to be eradicated. If no politician has even been on the take, there would be no problem in closing this hole. Can someone offer up a reason for NOT reforming the laws and rules regulating this practice? I've made my argument for reform, what is the argument against it? Lack of statistical evidence? There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
Influence should never be bought or even seemlingly bought. To the further benefit of the interest of the people over the PACs and to restore the faith of the people in the government, the practice should be removed.
Again, I am calling to attention the problems of the motivation. And as I said before, they can keep the money left over in their campaign funds after they are out of office. So where once the motivation is to represent the people to remain in office, now it's not so bad to be voted out because there is a nice little pot of gold as a consolation prize in the loser's circle. More than anything, that is motivation not to care if a decision is unpopular or even unjust. Why do we need statistics to measure something as obviously wrong as this?
Microsoft is not stupid. (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets make something crystal clear when you put Microsoft vs Open Sorce. They have different goals. Microsoft is to claim the market share and reap the rewards of profit. Open Source is to share, improve, and make better to finish something. Microsoft will never "finish", and I hate to put it to you they make things easy, and in this world that is enough. When the open source movement sees that it is not the features but "ease of use" is when the tides will start to turn. The world does not care about if it can control the software, the OS, or the kernal. They care about sending and e-mail, making a spread sheet, and buying a DVD online without having to learn perl, or reading a book.
Make it easy, and hide the hard stuff. That is how you win, and Microsoft knows it. We as open source, praise the hard stuff. We love it, we bask in it as if it was holly water, and it is our downfall.
Re:Microsoft is not stupid. (Score:2)
...
They care about sending and e-mail
Well somebody has to care about forwarding the mail via a number of servers which are mostly *nix.
We the open source advocates are not, I hope, competing with Windows as such. If people find that Windows is good enough for their desktop, let them use it. Some people, on the other hand, find that a *nix desktop suits their needs (e.g. sciehtific stuff) much better, and I can assure that happens from the number of Linux machines used here at CERN.
What I fear is the PHB attitude, which crudely goes like this: 'Windows runs on computers. Network servers and number crunching machines are computers. Let's put Windows on all of them.'
George Bush and the M$ case (Score:5, Insightful)
The Navy's plan to move from UNIX to NT (IT-21) is shortsigted, and possibly dangerous given that control of their command and communication systems is going to be NT based. One could easily imagine entire task groups being disabled without a single shot being fired by inserting viral or worm based attacks. Granted NT has TRUSTED versions, but many of the security holes and failure modes are still present. Relying on a corporation whose model for the dissemination of products is deadline based rather than product based ensures that their software will always be "not quite done or ready for release" as their goal is making money, not ensuring quality software with good engineering and tight security.
It's bad enough running across the BSOD in my research, but I for one would not want to be seeing the BSOD in the middle of a fight. "Hang on Commander, we need to reboot before we can engage incoming targets." Screw that noise.
Re:George Bush and the M$ case (Score:4, Insightful)
Could you be so kind as to follow-up with your sources for the information given above? I do not doubt the creditibility of the statements above, but if I am to fear something in our future, I certainly want to understand what it is I'm afraid of.
Selling your product for profit is an acceptable motivation in business, but selling-out your country's safety is yet another issue entirely. The notion of NT running a ship's nervous system scares the crap out of me.
I was aboard the U.S.S. Eisenhower (CVN-69) during the Desert Shield/Desert Storm conflict. The state of the Navy was, at that time, pretty ideal. There were no women on combatant vessels, and "the big picture" was being run on some really nice *NIX systems. I was partly involved with the installation of the upgrades implemented on that ship at that time.
Microsoft can't be so stupid as to think that their OS is stable enough for combat can they? Obviously they are... at least I hope they are. Otherwise, there are other conclusions about Microsoft I would be forced to draw... things like "Microsoft values its profit over national security." How about THAT for an insane conclusion?
Re:George Bush and the M$ case (Score:2)
Absolutely. I originally read it some time ago in the Gov. Computer News, but any search will probably bring it up.
I agree that selling a product for profit is acceptable and indeed what capitalism is all about. Furthermore, I am sure that M$ is not actively selling out their country, but rather the potential consequences are an emergent phenomenon of their corporate business practice. Accidents do happen, but in defense their are certain issues that need to be considered. Adoption of NT for the Navy's Smart Ship program is one of them.
Here is an excerpt from the article in Gov.Comp news:
The US Navy's so-call "Smart Ship technology" left the Aegis missile cruiser USS Yorktown dead in the water off the coast of Cape Charles, Va. for several hours. The shutdown of the ship's propulsion was credited to a database overflow in a Windows NT system. The crash was caused by the inability of the OS to properly handle division by zero. Said Anthony DiGiorgio, a civilian engineer with the Atlantic Fleet Technical Support Center, "Using Windows NT, which is known to have some failure modes, on a warship is similar to hoping that luck will be in our favor." The Navy is still expected to spend $138 million expanding the "Smart Ship" program to the entire Aegis class, and to other ships in the fleet. (Government Computer News, 13 July 1998)
Re:George Bush and the M$ case (Score:2)
In case you're confused, the poster you replied to isn't saying that the database crashing was the problem, but that the database crashing the operating system was the problem. A program running on an operating system shouldn't be able to crash the operating system, and it's the OS's fault if it does.
Re:George Bush and the M$ case (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:George Bush and the M$ case (Score:2, Informative)
Okay, I guess I sorta deserved that. The comments I made were a short and conclusive summary of my perspective of the Navy at that time and what significant changes were occuring at the time I left the service. It was not intended to be a linkage of any sort.
That said, I do not support women on combatant vessels but not for any particular desire to protect the "weaker sex." In fact, I would support women on combatant vessels whole-heartedly if they were on sexually segregated vessels. My argument against women on combatant vessels lies entirely on my personal experience in dealing with battle conditions! When navigating through a ship to get from one point to another, we rely not on our familiarity with the ship to find the fastest route from our current location (a) to our assigned general quarters post (b), but on our general understanding of the addressing of where we are currently and how we can get there. I know that it doesn't make sense both because of horrible grammatical construction or a civilian perspective but let me explain:
Women's birthing spaces are GUARDED. That is to say that a member of the crew is posted outside of female crew quarters preventing the entry and passage of male crew members through those spaces. (Interestingly, there is no such counter guarding preventing female crew from entering and passing through male crew quarters.) This, in my opinion, interferes with the general "alternative traffic" flows within a combatant vessel even and especially during a call to general quarters. Getting battle ready at a moment's notice is, in my opinion and probably in fact, a sailor's #1 duty when serving aboard a combatant vessel. The mere presence of women hinder that primary and crucial duty. It's ridiculous but I don't see it changing any time soon.
I love those sci-fi movies that show men and women quartered together under combat situations! They are forward thinking, in that respect, and depict how mature adult fighting personnel can relate to each other. I'll be the first to admit that we're not ready for it yet. But eventually, men and women sharing confined spaces in combat situations will be something I can agree with. But I hold that duty comes before issues of modesty. I will entrust my life to a female doing her duty. That has never been an issue. I think the feeling of being a member of the "untrusted sex" is insulting and degrading and, again, is counter-productive to the purpose of a combatant vessel.
My sincere apologies for drifting so far off-topic. Please don't kill my karma too much.
And if anyone has any doubt, I am STRAIGHT. I just take military duty very seriously. It's life and death out there and petty issues have no place over mission priorities.
Re:George Bush and the M$ case (Score:2, Funny)
actually, the perfect world would have *NIX and women both and lots of it.
Re:George Bush and the M$ case (Score:2)
They've managed to convince much of corporate America of that quite nicely...and it is my theory that they managed to do that by believing it themselves.
How else would anyone else believe it?
WinNT in military applications (Score:2, Informative)
All of the major networks that I played with were Win-based, including several at USNA as well as those on every boat I visited (including, notably, the Seawolf). In virtually every case, the network was a hosed-up nightmare. I can only think of one that was even realistically usable, thanks to an absolutely incredible sysadmin. All of the others had so much downtime (and other manner of problems) that they were barely functional.
To illustrate the point most dramatically, I was in a tactical simulation one afternoon, on a Win-based network. Our ships had run across the enemy in force, and we prepared for the incoming aircraft. Unfortunately, we were unable to fire any missiles, as the system locked up before the first shot was fired. We sat helplessly and watched as our fleet was destroyed. Fortunately, that was merely a simulation, but it isn't hard to imagine a similar problem happening in real life -- and nevermind the problems of fighting with a ship whose network may be under attack!
I shouldn't have to reference the SmartShip failure, either. The Navy's experiment with a computer-based ship started out as a Unix project, but was switched out to MS at the last minute. On one occasion, a null value in a database crashed the entire ship's computer system, disabling the entire ship. It had to be towed back to port. Imagine that happening in battle.
With leadership like this, we hardly need enemies!
Re: US using Windows for Military (Score:2)
>out of the communications loop. Even worse, the system is designed so that the soldier can use an HUD to call in mortar fire. Any thoughts on what a
>slipped bit can do to targeting?
Not to worry.
Those problems will be fixed in the *next* version. Promise.
Re:George Bush and the M$ case (Score:2)
The US armed forces were badly integrated. There are a lot of problems, women can't share facilities, so they get private areas. This leads to 5-10 women having an area meant for 50, and other injustices.
Similarly, the "equal" women aren't assigned a lot of the tough or dangerous jobs.
This leads to resentment, the men do harder work, and have less perks.
But, the worst part of this is that the women who are pulling their weight never get credit for it, because there are so many who coast by with cushy jobs and quarters.
US society isn't terribly equal in many ways this means that proper armed-forces integration will have a ton of problems.
It's not the fault of the women, and honestly, most of them probably are doing their best, but it really has gone downhill since integration.
Re:George Bush and the M$ case (Score:2)
Or imagine it in smart planes, like the Stealth F/B which has a tendency of falling from the sky if the computer crashes. SE-Linux on the other hand could be a real boon for the DoD.
Re:George Bush and the M$ case (Score:2)
As for stealth bombers, (B-2) I am aware of no crashes.
Re:George Bush and the M$ case (Score:2)
O.K. I'll tell you. We have a new Dell 2Ghz P4 with dual 18in LCD's and Firewire. I got a BSOD Friday afternoon after plugging in a Firewire HD that has worked with a variety of machines for months now.
Happy? Not me either.
Re:NT on good hardware still sucks (Score:2)
Re:George Bush and the M$ case (Score:2)
As for command and control systems, they are not really about compute cycles as much as they are about redundancy, reliability and security.
Re:George Bush and the M$ case (Score:2)
I have good hardware. Has no trouble running anything. Unless it's Counter-Strike, and then on a real simple alt-tab (or god help me if I leave the machine and the screen saver kicks in).
Poof.
Some kind of memory error that I don't really feel like figuring out.
Nice. I'm sure that people are all playing Counter Strike on servers across the country.
Try updating your video drivers.
Re:George Bush and the M$ case (Score:2)
Re:George Bush and the M$ case (Score:2)
Plus, the phone system costs $3.6 million whereas the NT system is around $140 million. So, by going with NT, I am getting a less reliable system in combat for considerably more cost to the taxpayer. If we are going with Smart Ship systems, I say stay with the TRUSTED and reliable systems (not NT) and pay the technies more. Besides, given the
Re:George Bush and the M$ case (Score:2)
Technically, NT is a flavor of Unix...
I don't think that's the case any more than BeOS is a flavor of Unix. They both support most of Posix, but the underlying kernel is implemented completely differently. If anything, NT's indirect ancestor is VMS.
Re:George Bush and the M$ case (Score:2)
But how many of these know how to admin it well. Let alone that expecting a civilian to know how to use computers in the military is a bit of a long shot...
Time Magazines take on the case (Score:2)
[extract from article] "Supporters of the antitrust lawsuit are worried that last week's announcement by Justice may be only the first shoe to drop. The next, they fear, could be a fuller capitulation, with the government settling the suit on terms that will let Microsoft continue to abuse its monopoly position"
What total FUD. (Score:4, Informative)
The article looked reasonable until I read this:
He can do this by releasing a new operating system even more bloated, slow and enormous than his current excrescences, thus requiring a general round of expensive and pointless consumer hardware upgrading-pointless for the consumers
What type of bull-ass-shit FUD is that? Excuse me, Mr Eben Moglen, but what information do you have to base this claim on? This is hardly surprising that this would up on
In any case, they have finally released a product that is, IMO, much more user friendly, finally away from the Win3.1/9x codebase, which is what people have been asking for for years. Sure, it does take a bit more processing power, however I noticed that on a fresh install, NOT ONLY does it boot in less time than linux does (30s from POWER ON to completely logged in. It's insanely fast), but it also takes LESS memory on boot than W2K did. MS did extensive user testing on their new modifications to their interface to make it much more friendly for Mom&Pop and the traditional Win9X user base, and included the options to turn this off so that you can go back to the W2K style interface. They have also abstracted the user interface layer sufficiently so that it is possible to create your own user interface entirely, as these people [stardock.com] have done to give you whatever type of interface you want. They have made the system much more robust and fault tolerant, indeed even more than W2K. They've added driver rollback, system restore and numerous other features to save people from their own mistakes, they've implemented a much more rigerous testing plan to ensure that drivers can't cause a system problem, they've implemented a system where drivers that are known to cause system problems will have the user warned prior to installing (and before you scream foul here, you can not only disable this, but you can edit the list yourself. It will not prohibit you from installing anything that you are determined to install). They have made it very simple to use webcams and cameras and scanners and other devices with very very little effort at all, they have given simple file sharing and networking and firewall and routing capabilities for home networks, and countless other features designed to be nice to the users. Indeed this is one of the largest changes that has happened for the average user since the Windows 95 release.
In addition, the hardware requirements are negligably higher than that of W2K. The memory has been doubled under the "Recommended" arena from 64MB to 128MB, but at $20USD for 128MB who cares? I'm glad they did this too because the memory management algorithms in W2K were far too old and based upon the premise of never having enough memory so swapping was agressive.
My system is much faster now than it was running Windows 2000.
They've added in many new support features like (Essentially) a built in high efficiency PCAnywhere/VNC based on the terminal server system that is fast, and designed in this case to allow other users to connect to your desktop to interface with you and help you out to configure that printer that you just bought and can't figure out how to setup. There's numerous other enchancements that I won't bother to go.
So how do the users respond? Actually most of them like it, but there's always the super-linux-rulez-MS-sucks crowd that is impossible to please and screams foul when MS does what they've been asked to. There is no winning no matter what they do.
Re:What total FUD. (Score:2)
Can there be anything further from the truth?
Re:What total FUD. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What total FUD. (Score:2, Insightful)
I've been trolled, but...
So "Innovation" is putting in features that users have been demanding for years ?
Here's a tip: innovation means coming up with something that no one else has thought of. If shareware utilities ahve it, and consumers know to want it, then it isn't innovative, it's missing.
From www.m-w.com
Main Entry: innovation
Pronunciation: "i-n&-'vA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY
Re:What total FUD. (Score:2)
How does it run on a x586 with 32 MBytes of RAM ?
Will it require a new machine for the vast majority of computer users to be a viable operating system ?
Will it change the fact that for most users an operating system allows them to write letters, write email, and surf the web ?
Moore's law: the CPU speed doubles every 18 months.
Gates' law: the speed of the operating system halves every 18 months.
Dell's law: the average computer user needs a new machine every 18 months.
Note that the third is a product of the first two.
Re:What total FUD. (Score:2, Insightful)
By the very nature of the beasties involved, no M$ product meets any of the above criteria. YMMV, but hey, it's your money, and it's a free country. I'm not arguing from ideology here, I'm talking about using common sense. A computer is a durable product.
BTW...if you define innovation as Leveraging new and unusual ways to lock users into license verification and developer lock-in, then you're right. Just like the Pentium 4, XP is the definitive OS for making the marketing departments of many software vendors happy. But I'm not going to be running it. I'll be running winblows 98se and *nix until they're outlawed. If I want to play a game, I'll do it on a PSX2 or similar dedicated game machine, which is remarkably inexpensive and well-suited for the task. All my boxen are either 486DX or Pentium machines, and they still seem perfectly capable of programming, illustration, spreadsheets, and StarCraft.
Other than elaborate PC games, is there really any reason someone _needs_ XP (besides the fat-cat software publishers, M$, and Big Brother)? You do understand that just like the Auto Industry, M$ wants consumers to buy a new OS (hopefully by buying a new system) every year. And as long as the luser-base is stoopid enough to throw away their money, the fat cats are going to happily churn out new crappy products to make the luser-base happy.
Sometimes it's not about FUD, it's about visualizing being on the business end of the M$ boot stepping a human face forever. Sure it's not so bad now, but someday they'll have those suckers resoled with cleats.
The Problem with XP Won't be its Quality... (Score:3, Insightful)
The acceptance of XP will be slow because it is relatively expensive compared to the added advantages that most users will get. Remember, right now most home users use their PCs to send email and surf the web at 56K. Even serious multimedia users are a small percentage compared to the email/web crowd at this point in time
I will agree that with XP, MS has finally produced a consumer OS that at least comes close to being worthy of the hardware it runs on, even though it attempts to bring with it multimedia format lock-in. With the retail price so high, however, and the fact that MS has made it more difficult to install one copy on multiple PCs, I suspect that only a small percentage of existing PC owners will bother to upgrade off the retail shelf, and even if they do, they may not upgrade all of their machines.
Even medium sized businesses (that don't get huge site licensing deals) will hesitate because of the cost. Our company has already decided to stick with '98 for the time being.
That leaves much of the uptake of XP to new hardware, which will of course come with XP at greatly reduced OEM prices. It will eventually gain dominace though this, and the fact that broadband and multimedia will eventually grow, but the PC market in the US is beginning to saturate as many families now have PCs capable of email and web surfing, and the growth will be slow.
Re:The Problem with XP Won't be its Quality... (Score:2)
Actually, I'd consider paying for it (first time for everything, right?) as it looks as though M$ have finally gotten it right, but I do not want to support a phone-home product.
Actually, I may consider buying a retail version, shelving in, and using a ripped non-phone-home warez version. Work through the morality of that one.
Re:M$ user FUD. (Score:2)
I guess I must have been halucinating when I saw Win2K running quite fine on my brother's PII 266 w/ 64 Meg of ram (hey - I never said super fast). My PII 300 with 256 Meg of ram runs win2k quite well thanks very much. I agree that Linux can be stripped down to be lighter and faster but there's no point spreading crap like this.
Re:What total FUD. (Score:3, Insightful)
The vast vast majority of Microsoft's money comes from OEM installations of Office and operating systems.
If no one buys new computers, no one buys Microsoft products. So far so good.
Now the tough part. Microsoft has to CONVINCE consumers that they NEED the new operating system. They achieve this is a few ways. First, they discontinue support and patches for old products. They say "That is an old product - please upgrade to Windows and Office XP". Secondly, they only support new hardware in the new operating system. Thus, if you get a new computer, you HAVE to have the new OS. Third, they make it very easy for users of the new Office software to make documents that are not backward compatible. About a third of all people who need a new version of Office will just buy a new computer to get it pre-installed.
The plan is multi-faceted, but has proven to work in the past. The easiest solution for most people is to buy a new computer. And if they buy a new computer, they will only have the pre-install option of getting Office XP. Then they get onto licensing terms, which get worse every year, until all of your dollars are belong to Billy G.
And you still end up with an OS that provides the same basic functionality to 99% of all computer users that Windows 3.1 did.
Re:What total FUD. (Score:2)
The vast vast majority of Microsoft's money comes from OEM installations of Office and operating systems
Thanks, but you're way off base there.
OEM revenue was $4.72 billion in 1998, $6.40 billion in 1999, and $7.01 billion in 2000.
Since the revenue was $15.2bil in 1998, $19.7bil in 1999 and $23.0bil in 2000, that's hardly the "vast majority".
FYI - Productivity Applications and Developer revenue was $7.04 billion, $8.82 billion, and $10.47 billion in 1998, 1999, and 2000. Windows Platforms revenue was $6.28 billion, $8.50 billion, and $9.38 billion in 1998, 1999, and 2000. Consumer and Other revenue was $1.94 billion, $2.43 billion, and $3.11 billion in 1998, 1999, and 2000.
You can find the financial report here [microsoft.com] or here [microsoft.com].
Microsoft has to CONVINCE consumers that they NEED the new operating system
Did you need that N64 or Gamecube or PS2 or Xbox? Did you need that new pair of shoes, new video card, new dvd drive, new TV? In most cases no, but people always buy things that they don't need. Indeed 95% of all marketing for all products is designed to convince people that they need things that they don't.
First, they discontinue support and patches for old products.
Oh really? I guess that discontinuing support after 3 years when there are 2 new product releases out and most people have already migrated to newer versions of your software doesn't have much of a reason there, eh? I guess you're angry at Ford because they don't make parts for the Model T anymore too?
they only support new hardware in the new operating system
Since when is MS responsible for device drivers? They're not. The people who make the hardware are responsible for drivers, MS has never been. Following that analogy I guess that I should be angry at linux because my new Geforce 3 card isn't fully supported out of the box too, eh?
Thus, if you get a new computer, you HAVE to have the new OS.
Again, the manuf's fault, not MS's.
Third, they make it very easy for users of the new Office software to make documents that are not backward compatible
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that all products are supposed to be 100% backward compatible. I guess that you still want to be using text mode and RTF then huh? You have to drop backwards compatibility sometime. And besides, you can always save as the old version, it's not that difficult if you need to. You can't expect all future releases to conform to the current format, otherwise you'd be bitching because there isn't any room for more functionality. Can't please people these days!
About a third of all people who need a new version of Office will just buy a new computer to get it pre-installed.
Where'd you get that BS from? If you have a link for that, please be sure to post it. Sounds like one of those 95% of statistics are made up on the spot things to me...
The plan is multi-faceted, but has proven to work in the past
Welcome to capitalism? That's the way that it works everywhere. People rarely need a new product or car or TV or clothes or sofa or gadget, they're convinced by the people who make them.. That's how you succeed in this economy.
The easiest solution for most people is to buy a new computer
Wow. I guess that dropping $1000 for you to get a new computer vs $200 to get the software is the same for you, huh? Care to spread some of that money this way? Or better yet donate it.
they will only have the pre-install option of getting Office XP
Funny that, I've been looking for a new laptop lately and I've seen only about 3 models that have Office XP preinstalled, and on 2 of the cases I asked if I could get it not installed and they said "sure" for a discount.
And you still end up with an OS that provides the same basic functionality to 99% of all computer users that Windows 3.1 did.
If you think that Windows XP has 99% of the same functionality that Windows 311 did you need to give your head a shake and climb out from under that rock. Linux has far far far more in common with the 70's unix than Windows XP does with Windows NT 4 nevermind Windows 3.11. There's no point in even debating this point.
Re:What total FUD. (Score:3, Insightful)
OEM revenue was $4.72 billion in 1998, $6.40 billion in 1999, and $7.01 billion in 2000.
Since the revenue was $15.2bil in 1998, $19.7bil in 1999 and $23.0bil in 2000, that's hardly the "vast majority".
Sorry. I meant PROFIT when I said MONEY. Not gross revenue.
In the case of computers, most users are not like gamers. They do not want or need the latest and greatest. If you surveyed most people, you would find that their business needs are completely met by Windows 95. They do not need another OS that requires 4 times more RAM to provide them the same user interface, the same office suite, and a few new bells and whistles that were mostly non-functional from the business point of view.
Indeed, this is Microsoft's entire motivation for getting people into XP. People are buying computers less frequently now. Microsoft sees this as a direct hit in the wallet. In a licensing scheme, however, they can stop the loss. XP is all about licensing software instead of buying it. In a licensing scheme, people pay Microsoft yearly whether they NEED it or not. They have no choice.
Re:What total FUD. (Score:2)
You accuse me of pulling out a single line and complaining about it, and you do the same thing to my post.
If you quoted the stuff before the line that you quoted from the article (I'll put it in bold for you)
by releasing a new operating system even more bloated, slow and enormous than his current excrescences
And to quote the rest of the line from my comment that you stripped out to make your point:
arena from 64MB to 128MB, but at $20USD for 128MB who cares?
I hardly call a $20 upgrade an "expensive and pointless consumer hardware upgrade".
It's not expensive, and it's certainly not pointless as any system would run better with the more memory.
Cheap Memory indeed (Score:2)
I hardly call a $20 upgrade an "expensive and pointless consumer hardware upgrade".
It's not expensive, and it's certainly not pointless as any system would run better with the more memory.
In a modern computer with a couple of spare SDRAM slots it's a $20 upgrade, sure, but you're talking a machine which is already within the spec for the latest version of Windows in every other regard
What about my laptop with two memory slots each with a 32Mb chip already in it, and memory at closer to $100 per 64Mb chip - I have to buy $200 worth of memory, not $20 worth - not to mention throw away the two chips I have.
What about older hardware (i.e. Pentium 166 with 72pin memory sockets).
Just because the most recent hardware upgrades cheaply doesn't mean older machines do, and it's people with older machines who are more likely to have to upgrade even to _read_ documents created by people with newer machines. This is the real side-effect of Microsoft (and other vendors) changing formats to push sales.
Re:Cheap Memory indeed (Score:2)
Too bad my vaio's not on the list (same old sony crap). But I'm running linux so it's not that big a deal to run 32m.
I actually think the problem nowadays is that many intel machines (desktops) can only take 512mb.
The problem with microsoft is that the product is now more interesting, so that's when they decided to trojan in the registration thing.
Why Win2k? (Score:2)
Win2K has made a great home OS. Its much more stable than the Win98 install it replaced, and my user base
I was never under the impression that WinNT 4.0 made that great of a workstation (or at least, a home machine - having said that, win2k has performed admirably on my laptop too).
Catch-Up-Time (Score:2)
I'd like to know what you're doing with your two *nix machines. But I have to agree - my Win2K workstation has been able to match uptimes to my Linux and Solaris workstations.
But there's an important distinction. This isn't a matter of Windows overtaking other technologies. This is a case of Windows finally catching up to where other's have been for years.
And its about time.
Hold on a minute (Score:2)
Re:Hold on a minute (Score:2)
Re:Hold on a minute (Score:2)
Consider this RMS quote, if you dare: "The obvious answers--to restrict contracts between Microsoft and computer manufacturers, or to break up the company--will not make a crucial difference."
Break-up would have been nicer to Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
If we take AT&T as an example, we will all notice that the Baby Bell's and AT&T may be competing, but they are also quite easily squishing out the competition around them. Since none truly have a monopoly (at least outside of their respective regions), regulations have been harder to make against them. Just think about what we call them: Baby Bells. They may be very fat babies, but the citizens think of them as babies.
Microsoft's size is also a deterrent for growth. Sometimes it is easier to dominate from a smaller position. It is much easier to organize and grow. If we keep Microsoft as one large corporation with shakles, we will probably do the country a greater service than breaking it apart and waiting for them to get us later.
Personally, I was worried that the Justice Department was going to just slice Microsoft apart and not really force the law on this slippery snake. With the only punishment the government wants to get being financial and restrictive, they are more likely to get it. I don't see this as favoritism but wisdom.
On a related note, I have a question for all of those hating Bush without reason when it comes to the decision (made be Ashcroft, not Bush) concerning not breaking-up Microsoft. What would be the ideal punishment? Would it make a difference if the restrictions placed around Microsoft's neck were instead around two companies?
If the restrictions are good enough, I would not care how many companies the Microsoft monopoly had in it. I just keep seeing them getting off easier if they are broken up. The judge might think they have been punished enough by a break-up and forego any thing further.
Re:Break-up would have been nicer to Microsoft (Score:2)
I am in favor of slapping them on the rists and saying "You are guilty!" and then letting the hundreds of private lawsuits immobilise the company...
Given this last week, though, I think that this case is going to be the least of Bush's worries... I don't think we will have to wory about additional capitulation.
Re:Break-up would have been nicer to Microsoft (Score:2)
"Baby Bill's"
Re:Break-up would have been nicer to Microsoft (Score:2)
If Microsoft is headed to the boneyard... (Score:2)
If Microsoft is headed to the boneyard, then the free market works, Microsoft's non-government-sanctioned "monopoly" (AT&Ts was government sanctioned, like every other real monopoly) isn't worth squat, and this crusade by a bunch of success-hating left-wingers (and certain alledged Republicans with Microsoft competitors in their districts) has been much ado about nothing.
The converse, Microsoft's continued success means the free market doesn't work, isn't necessarily true, before y'think about throwing that one at me.
One more time: FEED ENGINEERS, NOT LAWYERS! The money spent attacking Microsoft could have paid for a helluva lot of Linux desktop development. And had Mozilla at 1.0 by now.
Re:If Microsoft is headed to the boneyard... (Score:2)
From what I can see, the free market in relation to Microsoft is working very well. 95% of the consumers want to use Windows, and Windows has 95% of the market. Gee! Of the people that I know that want to run Linux, 100% of them are. Of the people that I know that want to run Mac, 100% of them are. Gee!
To be fair, I do know a number of people who use Windows who *don't* want to use Windows. I introduced them to Linux, and they went right back to Windows. Why? Because they discovered to their embarrassment, that even though they don't want to use Windows, they DO want to use something that is identical to Windows.
As long as Microsoft makes the only product that looks, acts and feels like Windows, and the public only wants to use systems that look, act and feel like Windows, then Microsoft will have a monopoly.
What am I missing? (Score:2)
the RIAA has said as much (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't mind that much if Hollywood tried to lock up its junk tightly, but the problem is that in such a world of DRM and controlled platforms, independent content producers end up having to go to the software publishers for the privilege of publishing. That's not because the software publishers provide any useful service, or because the software publishers have any particularly great technology, but because they hold the keys that independent publishers need to get access to the multimedia clients and document readers. This gives Microsoft and places like that an unacceptable level of control.
PS: I would try to dig up this information on the RIAA site, but when I try to connect to it, I get the message "ODBC Error Code = 08004 (Data source rejected establishment of connection) [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Unable to connect."
No mention of Macs and lots of slashdot baiting (Score:3, Interesting)
There are now two kinds of computers in the world: Windows computers... and free software computers
Macs anyone? Are Apple's numbers so insignificant next to Linux that they don't deserve a mention?
Best software in the world free? That's more arguable opinion than fact. Both sides have their winners and losers.
Re:No mention of Macs and lots of slashdot baiting (Score:2)
You cannot buy a computer without Windows preinstalled. So don't mention Macs. And even if you could build your own computer without Windows, you still can't build a laptop. So don't mention Macs. All the software on the store shelves only runs on Windows. So don't mention Mac. KDE and GNOME are better than the Windows UI. So don't mention Mac.
Surrendered? (Score:2)
Mr. Moglen seems politically naive. Hollywood is not monolithic, and Dubya cannot simply say "surrender" to the DOJ. It's not that simple.
He has the same myopic view that got MS into trouble at the trial. They thought that the real world works like the computer industry. It does not.
Score! (Score:2)
The greatest effect Microsoft has had upon the world of software is the way it lowers customer expectations.
After years of leading the market with medium quality products, Microsoft has passed the first test in becoming a traditional standard. People have learned to live with the BSOD, and even joke about it instead of seeking alternatives. Not exactly good news for those in the know, but like it or not, Bill is a marketing genius.
Lets make it clear (Score:3, Insightful)
So as I am concerned they are losing money. 'nuff said.
You just don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
How Open Source failed Hollywood. (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember all the horrid stories about Metallica and Napster here on slashdot? And most everyone saying it was unfair to sell those CDs at such a huge markup? After all, they've been doing it for twenty years now.
There are a lot of very rich people staying rich, with elegant homes on prime real estate, with bowls of cocaine on the tables and teenage girlies all around the pool. And you think a bunch of programmers can take that lifestyle away? Get real.
The government? Five percent of America controls the government, as long as unemployment stays under 10%. Did someone say McDonalds? Or was that WalMart?
The new laws on the way say three important things:
1) The NSF shall be funded by the dotGOV to create a workable DRM infrastucture. This will allow people with the right-to-use to actually use the binary object in question.
2) If the NSF cannot perform the task in a reasonable amount of time, a corporation will be given the green light, and will be exempt from anti-trust laws (who could that be?)
3) It will be illegal to sell or transfer a device (hw or sw) that does not protect the IP rights holder.
Never mind that all the people who once stole on Napster are now stealing on BearShare. Never mind that nearly all the people, in either case, were/are running Microsoft products.
So, someone has convinced the powers-that-be that middleware, with a certified OS (no Root access/no binary tools) is the holy grail. That way, you can validate the object chain -- guaranteed.
I think that is a bunch of crap. We need to focus on doing the right thing--reasonable protection for IP, reasonable non-interference with personal behavior--if a musician wants to give something away, or an author wants to give away a book, they should be able to "mark it" free.
Just like we do with books, we should be able to trade IP -- give it away, loan it out, buy or sell it.
All that is needed is some type of client-server infrastucture, complete with (I imagine) a one-time decryption key process. The client-server infrastucture would keep track of the current rights holder for the objects, aloowing the current holders to decypt and use the binary object.
There would be horrific penalties for cracking the rights infrastructure, or distributing the tools to do so.
Society operates this way right now. There is no need to have two policeman ride along with me to insure I am not bad--it's just a matter of my realizing that crime or violence is not a acceptable solution to life's struggles. The penalty exceeds the payoff.
Applying a similar concept to the IP situation--harsh prosecution for using cracked s/w, distributing cracking s/w, etc.--should be more than enough to satisy Hollywood and the Government, plus it's the reasonable thing to do.
Re:How Open Source failed Hollywood. (Score:2)
By 2005, you will need a license to run a non-government approved OS. Don't waste our time explaining how stupid or unenforcable that is, it's what's going to happen.
More horrific than the DMCA? Cracking lame-o-whiz protection is worse than rape and murder?
I was with you up to there. But let's criminalise the act itself, not just having the potential to commit it.
You Would Make The Birchers Proud! (Score:2)
The John Birch society views every event through the filter of "it's all a communist/insider conspiracy". You guys view everthing through a "it's all a Bush/Microsoft/MPAA/RIAA conspiracy".
Re:You Would Make The Birchers Proud! (Score:2)
Yeah, I know, we fall for that old ploy of businesses declaring that they've given millions of dollars to politicians, when really the situation is much worse because... no... wait... how could it be worse?
*how* the U.S. surrendered... (Score:3, Insightful)
--LP
Re:Mirror? (Score:2, Redundant)
by Eben Moglen
It was hardly a surprise. George W. Bush told us during the campaign that he thought United States v. Microsoft shouldn't have been brought in the first place; Al Gore, who could hardly say that, limited himself to making a campaign appearance at Microsoft's Redmond headquarters. But what was surprising about the announcement that the Justice Department would not pursue the breakup of Microsoft was that the decision had become so easy for the politicians who really made it. The coalition of "campaign contributors" that had stiffened the Clinton Administration's spine against Microsoft in the first place had changed sides.
The most important are Microsoft's erstwhile enemies, the hardware manufacturers-Intel, HP, Compaq and the rest of the PC-makers, who, although still determined to drive down the share of any new PC's price paid to Microsoft, are very temporarily in its corner. They are all, without exception, in very serious trouble. In the United States, PCs are sold to corporations or to consumers, at Christmastime. But US business has all the computers it needs, and more. Last Christmas was a disaster for the hardware makers, and with layoffs up, recession looming and Americans' credit card debt at an all-time high, this one looks just as bad. Desktop PCs are already selling at fire-sale prices, and if this winter's products don't move, some Very Big People will fail. The announcement that HP will use "$25 billion" of grossly overpriced HP stock to buy an almost worthless Compaq will save Carly Fiorina's job for a while (a religious doctrine of US capitalism says you can't fire a CEO-even one who has missed three consecutive quarters of earnings projections-while she's in the middle of this big a deal), but although the merged company will probably soon fire twice the 15,000 workers it has already said will go, no one but Bill Gates can save HP/Compaq and the others.
He can do this by releasing a new operating system even more bloated, slow and enormous than his current excrescences, thus requiring a general round of expensive and pointless consumer hardware upgrading-pointless for the consumers, that is, but not for the manufacturers, whose interests for the next few months lie in supporting Gates. Bush, who lost California big time in 2000, won't carry it next time either, but he certainly isn't going to let northern California's biggest bribes all go to the other side. Or southern California's either. Hollywood is now Gates's staunchest and most loyal ally-unlike the hardware manufacturers, even in better economic times the content moguls have nowhere else to go. There are now two kinds of computers in the world: Windows computers, which their users cannot technically understand or modify, and free software computers (usually inaccurately called "Linux" computers), running the enormous body of software made by the best programmers on earth and given to everyone to use freely, modify and redistribute. Windows XP has been designed to help the movie and music businesses by degrading the quality of the MP3 music-file format that currently fuels the world's music-sharing systems like Napster [see Moglen, "Liberation Musicology," March 12]. These systems allow users, who need pay nothing, to exchange music with anyone else in the world-thus giving the five companies that control the world's popular music the heebie-jeebies. Windows XP also contains facilities that might soon allow the movie and television companies to control all video distributed through the web, or at least to hobble any serious competition they might meet there. In the world of "convergence," where what we have seen as separate media (radio, television, movies, recorded music, books, magazines, newspapers, video games) are all "bitstreams" delivered to digital devices, the oligarchs of culture and the monopolist of software are discovering that this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Can we learn anything here about the general antitrust policy of the remarkably pro-corporate Bush Administration? Only that when corporate America was divided on what to do with Microsoft, there was room to care about competition. When all corporate players agree-which is the moment when antitrust law should be most important-it has the least influence on this Administration. What's next in the history of United States v. Microsoft? Much sterile legal maneuvering, leading to a settlement that will leave Gates's empire unchained and undiminished. But only temporarily. The best software in the world continues to be free. Free as in free speech: free to use, free to copy, free to modify. As users learn what free software can do, manufacturers won't need Gates anymore. If you're a capitalist and you have the very best goods, and they're free, you don't have to proselytize-you just have to wait. Thanks to the venality of politics in America, Microsoft is riding high right now, but it is headed for the boneyard after all.
Re:Because Nader took votes from Gore... (Score:2)
Re:Because Nader took votes from Gore... (Score:2)
He is also not just the mirror-image of Clinton. He was constantly in Clinton's shadow during his two terms, but would've been a very different president had he been elected. He's also much more technologically-competant than Clinton, and especially Bush.
Although McCain might've won the republican primaries, and made everything completely different. He had lots of ideas about campaign finance reform that I would've liked to see put into action (and I think they might still be...).
Re:Learn How to Speak English (Score:2)
I agree with you but it would be good for you to run your message through a spell checker before you submit no? This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black! Hahaha. Sorry, but the irony was just too obvious.
Re:Learn How to Speak English (Score:2)
So let's all make an effort to spell and punctuate properly.
Re:Hollywood surrenders to MS (Score:2)
s/people/$$$ and you'll have your answer.
Re:Hollywood surrenders to MS (Score:2, Funny)
It's at least interesting that The Nation ran this with no apparent understanding of the amount of questionable rhetoric it contains.
Re:Disagreement regarding FS = Flame me :) (Score:3, Insightful)
Well ... those things aren't in opposition :)
Most programmers in the country (around 90% is the number I've heard, I cannot back it up and would love to see contrary or supporting numbers) work on custom software for companies, doing things like tying together accounting systems with company email systems, or designing custom commerce systems. They can use Free software all they want, and get paid what they can get away with ;)
They can also modify the code they work with -- and If they're not publishing the results, that's the end of it. Game over, they used free software and made money. If they modifying the code *and publishing* the result, the only restrictions they accept (under the GPL at least) is to provide the original source code they were provided (sounds fair) and the source code to their modified version (again, sounds fair to me) along with a copy of the license, which says others are similarly constrained in their republication, etc etc.
Under the BSD license, also considered Free by the Free Software Foundation, things don't even go that far -- the developer can say "Hey! This is a nify little solution I've worked out from freely availble tools licensed such that I can proprietize the whole thing and sell it for one ... billion .. dollars." More power to 'em. If the price is past a certain threshold, others will put together a similar combo and either sell or give it away. Churn.
"Therefore, the best developers will naturally be working on the developments that make the most $, and that != free source."
Premise flawed, conclusion does not follow :)
timothy
I'm flaming you (Score:2)
Re:Incorrect comments on MP3s (Score:2)
I don't understand what it is with some people. They do not like the way the world is now, so they dream that the world is even worse than it actually is. For what purpose?
I tire of zealotry. The events this past week show how dangerous it can become.
Re:Real reason the gov't backed off (Score:2)
Huh, neither one of them has doubled their price for the services they provide in the last decade without losing market share. Probably cause the evil government regulators won't let them.
Business is pretty cutthroat, but in all cases the competition is directed at who can make the consumer happiest. MS has suceeded here better than anyone else. That's why they have a dominant market position.
Cutthroat is one thing - breaking contracts (JVM), not paying royalties(Spyglass), using secret contracts to deny your competiton market entry (OEM licenses), losing money to drive your competitiors out of business (Netscape) - the list goes on. These aren't cutthroat, they're crooked. {sarcasm} If the mob gives me good protection, they've made me a happy customer, it doesn't matter that they had to break the law to do it.{/sarcasm} I'm so sick of this nonsense.