Close scrutiny of "After the Software Wars"
Homer
libertarian propaganda peice. Take this extremely obvious example from
the 24-page "Afterword" section:
[quote]
The fawning and shallow press focused more on David Boies brilliance and
ability to quote obscure legislation from memory than the important
facts and issues of the case he was making. Almost everything Microsoft
did was done by other people in the industry. It was only because
Microsoft became the biggest company on the block that it became
illegal. Microsoft was a monopoly, and therefore was behaving badly,
even when it was acting the same as everyone else. And, no one could
describe when Microsoft had crossed that line. Microsoft succeeded
because it built the best products. That Sun, Netscape, Apple and other
companies, who at the time were just as proprietary as Microsoft,
complained is disingenuous. They were jealous and afraid, and used the
government to help them.
[/quote]
http://keithcu.com/SoftwareWars.pdf
Dear God!
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia's Findings
of Facts, in the U.S. vs Microsoft case, paints a rather different
picture:
On Sun:
[quote]
386. For Microsoft, a key to maintaining and reinforcing the
applications barrier to entry has been preserving the difficulty of
porting applications from Windows to other platforms, and vice versa. In
1996, senior executives at Microsoft became aware that the number of
developers writing network-centric applications in the Java programming
language had become significant, and that Java was likely to increase in
popularity among developers. Microsoft therefore became interested in
maximizing the difficulty with which applications written in Java could
be ported from Windows to other platforms, and vice versa.
...
394. In a further effort intended to increase the incompatibility
between Java applications written for its Windows JVM and other Windows
JVMs, and to increase the difficulty of porting Java applications from
the Windows environment to other platforms, Microsoft designed its Java
developer tools to encourage developers to write their Java applications
using certain "keywords" and "compiler directives" that could only be
executed properly by Microsoft's version of the Java runtime environment
for Windows. Microsoft encouraged developers to use these extensions by
shipping its developer tools with the extensions enabled by default and
by failing to warn developers that their use would result in
applications that might not run properly with any runtime environment
other than Microsoft's and that would be difficult, and perhaps
impossible, to port to JVMs running on other platforms. This action
comported with the suggestion that Microsoft's Thomas Reardon made to
his colleagues in November 1996: "[W]e should just quietly grow j++
[Microsoft's developer tools] share and assume that people will take
more advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building
win32-only java apps." Microsoft refused to alter its developer tools
until November 1998, when a court ordered it to disable its keywords and
compiler directives by default and to warn developers that using
Microsoft's Java extensions would likely cause incompatibilities with
non-Microsoft runtime environments.
[/quote]
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
Popular reference:
[quote]
"[Sun] is trying to turn the JFCs into the Sun operating system". said
Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's executive VP of sales and support. It's sort
of the next chance for Sun to be a desktop operating system player. The
first one was Unix [...] Now, they are trying again with JFC, and we
hope they don't win." [...] They are trying to get this to be a runtime
layer to which application vendors write their applications. Those are
the APIs they want people to write to."
[/quote]
http://archive.eiffel.com/general/editorial/1997/microsoft-sun-java.html
On Netscape:
[quote]
80. Executives at Microsoft received confirmation in early May 1995 that
Netscape was developing a version of Navigator to run on Windows 95,
which was due to be released in a couple of months. Microsoft's senior
executives understood that if they could prevent this version of
Navigator from presenting alternatives to the Internet-related APIs in
Windows 95, the technologies branded as Navigator would cease to present
an alternative platform to developers. Even if non-Windows versions of
Navigator exposed Internet-related APIs, applications written to those
APIs would not run on the platform Microsoft executives expected to
enjoy the largest installed base, i.e., Windows 95. So, as long as the
version of Navigator written for Windows 95 relied on Microsoft's
Internet-related APIs instead of exposing its own, developing for
Navigator would not mean developing cross-platform.
...
81. In a meeting held at Microsoft's headquarters on June 2, 1995,
Microsoft executives suggested to Jim Clark's replacement as CEO at
Netscape, James Barksdale, that the version of Navigator written for
Windows 95 be designed to rely upon the Internet-related APIs in Windows
95
...
90. Microsoft knew that Netscape needed certain critical technical
information and assistance in order to complete its Windows 95 version
of Navigator in time for the retail release of Windows 95. Indeed,
Netscape executives had made a point of requesting this information,
especially the so-called Remote Network Access ("RNA") API, at the June
21 meeting. As was discussed above, the Microsoft representatives at the
meeting had responded that the haste with which Netscape received the
desired technical information would depend on whether Netscape entered
the so-called "special relationship" with Microsoft.
...
91. Although Netscape declined the special relationship with Microsoft,
its executives continued, over the weeks following the June 21 meeting,
to plead for the RNA API. Despite Netscape's persistence, Microsoft did
not release the API to Netscape until late October, i.e., as Allard had
warned, more than three months later. The delay in turn forced Netscape
to postpone the release of its Windows 95 browser until substantially
after the release of Windows 95 (and Internet Explorer) in August 1995.
As a result, Netscape was excluded from most of the holiday selling
season.
92. Microsoft similarly withheld a scripting tool that Netscape needed
to make its browser compatible with certain dial-up ISPs. Microsoft had
licensed the tool freely to ISPs that wanted it, and in fact had
cooperated with Netscape in drafting a license agreement that, by mid-
July 1996, needed only to be signed by an authorized Microsoft executive
to go into effect. There the process halted, however. In mid-August, a
Microsoft representative informed Netscape that senior executives at
Microsoft had decided to link the grant of the license to the resolution
of all open issues between the companies. Netscape never received a
license to the scripting tool, and as a result, was unable to do
business with certain ISPs for a time.
[/quote]
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
Popular reference:
[quote]
The federal government, on the other hand, sees "a broad pattern of
unlawful conduct" on Microsoft's part, "with the purpose and effect of
thwarting emerging threats to its powerful and well-entrenched operating
system." The company's "predatory campaign" included attempts to, as a
statement attributed to Microsoft put it, "cut off Netscape's air
supply" and keep other competitors from gaining ground in the software
marketplace.
[/quote]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/microsoft/stories/1999/microsoft081199.htm
On Apple:
[quote]
105. Beginning in the spring of 1997 and continuing into the summer of
1998, Microsoft tried to persuade Apple to stop producing a Windows 95
version of its multimedia playback software, which presented developers
of multimedia content with alternatives to Microsoft's multimedia APIs.
...
106. In their discussions with Apple, Microsoft's representatives made
it clear that, if Apple continued to market multimedia playback software
for Windows 95 that presented a platform for content development, then
Microsoft would enter the authoring business to ensure that those
writing multimedia content for Windows 95 concentrated on Microsoft's
APIs instead of Apple's. The Microsoft representatives further stated
that, if Microsoft was compelled to develop and market authoring tools
in competition with Apple, the technologies provided in those tools
might very well be inconsistent with those provided by Apple's tools.
Finally, the Microsoft executives warned, Microsoft would invest
whatever resources were necessary to ensure that developers used its
tools; its investment would not be constrained by the fact that
authoring software generated only modest revenue.
[/quote]
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
Two popular references:
[quote]
Introducing shades of Greek tragedy into the government's antitrust suit
against Microsoft yesterday, Apple Computer executive Avadis Tevanian
accused Microsoft of urging his company to "knife the baby" by killing
one of its own products to make way for a rival Microsoft version.
As the antitrust trial moved into its 11th day, the dramatic testimony
marked just one of several tense exchanges in which Tevanian thwarted
the cross-examination of Microsoft attorney Theodore Edelman by turning
to the judge and expounding on his own version of events rather than
simply answering the question.
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson not only permitted Tevanian's
elaborations, but repeatedly scolded the Microsoft attorney for
attempting to mislead Tevanian or mischaracterize his version of events.
At one point, Jackson told Edelman, "You keep mischaracterizing what
he's told you. ... It's misleading language and it is not acceptable."
[/quote]
[quote]
[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to make
sure that you don't make any money, either.
[/quote]
http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
Summary:
[quote]
33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible
PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in
terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above
that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could
do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable
amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys
monopoly power in the relevant market.
34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys
monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for
Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable.
Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier
to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's
customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.
...
412. Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's actions have
conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the
computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq,
Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its
prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that
insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against
one of Microsoft's core products. Microsoft's past success in hurting
such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies
and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The
ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit
consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with
Microsoft's self-interest.
[/quote]
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
--
K. | "Linux hackers are on a mission
http://slated.org | from God" ~ The Vatican
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky |
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 77 days | http://tinyurl.com/linuxmission
Chris Ahlstrom
> The more I read this, the more I'm convinced it's just a pro-Microsoft /
> libertarian propaganda peice. Take this extremely obvious example from
> the 24-page "Afterword" section:
>
> [quote]
> The fawning and shallow press focused more on David Boies brilliance and
> ability to quote obscure legislation from memory than the important
> facts and issues of the case he was making. Almost everything Microsoft
> did was done by other people in the industry. It was only because
> Microsoft became the biggest company on the block that it became
> illegal. Microsoft was a monopoly, and therefore was behaving badly,
> even when it was acting the same as everyone else. And, no one could
> describe when Microsoft had crossed that line. Microsoft succeeded
> because it built the best products. That Sun, Netscape, Apple and other
> companies, who at the time were just as proprietary as Microsoft,
> complained is disingenuous. They were jealous and afraid, and used the
> government to help them.
> [/quote]
>
> http://keithcu.com/SoftwareWars.pdf
>
> Dear God!
>
> The United States District Court for the District of Columbia's Findings
> of Facts, in the U.S. vs Microsoft case, paints a rather different
> picture:
>
> <snip>
>
> http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
>
> Popular reference:
>
> [quote]
> The federal government, on the other hand, sees "a broad pattern of
> unlawful conduct" on Microsoft's part, "with the purpose and effect of
> thwarting emerging threats to its powerful and well-entrenched operating
> system." The company's "predatory campaign" included attempts to, as a
> statement attributed to Microsoft put it, "cut off Netscape's air
> supply" and keep other competitors from gaining ground in the software
> marketplace.
> [/quote]
And they're still doing it, with every resource at their disposal.
--
"Perhaps I am flogging a straw herring in mid-stream, but in the light of
what is known about the ubiquity of security vulnerabilities, it seems vastly
too dangerous for university folks to run with their heads in the sand."
-- Peter G. Neumann, RISKS moderator, about the Internet virus
amicus_curious
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote in message
news:ipol3t$r3m$3...@dont-email.me...
You are as silly as Homer to complain that Microsoft is not willing to
participate in its own demise, nut. I guess that idea has some traction
with the FOSS crowd, but it only makes you fellas look absurd.
BTW, the facts surrounding the Netscape issue were ruled as not being any
violation of antitrust laws by Judge Jackson in the original District Court
findings. Netscape failed on its own, Jackson found.
KeithCu
> The more I read this, the more I'm convinced it's just a pro-Microsoft /
> libertarian propaganda peice. Take this extremely obvious example from
> the 24-page "Afterword" section:
>
Calling my book pro-Microsoft is crazy talk.
It is rude to say that I write propaganda.
I have not read all the snippets you pass around to each other, but I
have read many thousands of pages of documents at the time the trial
took place and I only wanted to say a few words.
I agree some of Microsoft's executives were "ruthless" and told lies
during the trial. I could add a sentence about that in a future
version. I have copied that sentence into my bug list already. But
Microsoft's success didn't come from that at all. It came from the
programmers. If you had worked in the company you'd see it very
differently.
The trial was a distraction for Microsoft, but seems a greater
distraction for the outside community. Linux wins, not by changing
anything inside Microsoft, or getting upset about their behavior, but
by improving itself. Wikipedia took over very quickly. I think Linux
has people with a victim mentality. That is a self-fulfilling
prophecy.
-Keith
Chris Ahlstrom
> The trial was a distraction for Microsoft, but seems a greater
> distraction for the outside community. Linux wins, not by changing
> anything inside Microsoft, or getting upset about their behavior, but
> by improving itself. Wikipedia took over very quickly. I think Linux
> has people with a victim mentality. That is a self-fulfilling
> prophecy.
Google for "knife the baby".
--
When you said "HEAVILY FORESTED" it reminded me of an overdue CLEANING
BILL ... Don't you SEE? O'Grogan SWALLOWED a VALUABLE COIN COLLECTION
and HAD to murder the ONLY MAN who KNEW!!
KeithCu
> KeithCu wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
> > The trial was a distraction for Microsoft, but seems a greater
> > distraction for the outside community. Linux wins, not by changing
> > anything inside Microsoft, or getting upset about their behavior, but
> > by improving itself. Wikipedia took over very quickly. I think Linux
> > has people with a victim mentality. That is a self-fulfilling
> > prophecy.
>
> Google for "knife the baby".
>
I did even though I don't care. I remember this during the trial. This
was in 1997. The words were by the Apple employee. If McDonald's has
an opportunity to convince Burger King to cancel their hamburger,
shouldn't they try?
chrisv
>Wikipedia took over very quickly.
Yeah, that's comparable. Not.
>I think Linux has people with a victim mentality.
What you think doesn't mean much.
>That is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
No it's not.
flatfish+++
> KeithCu wrote:
>>I think Linux has people with a victim mentality.
>
> What you think doesn't mean much.
He is correct though.
One look at COLA will prove that beyond doubt.
Linux "advocates" love to blame others for Linux's failures.
They really have no choice. Once you get past Linux being free, what
else is there?
You certainly can't talk about applications because the good ones, like
gimp for example, are also available for Windows as well.
Advocating Linux = blaming Microsoft.
--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html
KeithCu
> KeithCu wrote:
> >Wikipedia took over very quickly.
>
> Yeah, that's comparable. Not.
The biggest difference is greater software transition costs, and
because FOSS user mode is a mess. But FOSS user mode didn't need to be
a mess. If you could go back in time 20 years, you could easily fix
all the problems we have today. Everything would be sooo easy.
>
> >I think Linux has people with a victim mentality.
>
> What you think doesn't mean much.
What you think doesn't say much.
>
> >That is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>
> No it's not.
Thinking you are a victim can be a massive distraction, which prevents
you from working on what you should be. How much energy did Netscape
and Sun expend on the DOJ trial? What did it get them and what did it
cost them? How much energy do geeks expend discussing patent risks
which never materialize?
The free software army of millions is losing to Microsoft's army of
thousands for a number of reasons and anger towards Microsoft is a
part of it. Victims become angry because they are in a situation they
cannot change and anger saps productive energy.
-Keith
chrisv
> (snip gibberish)
Homer
No, they really shouldn't, and the fact you'd even suggest they should
speaks volumes about your total lack of ethics, and as it turns out,
your bias and crass hypocrisy too.
First you say:
"Linux wins, not by changing anything inside Microsoft, or getting
upset about their behavior, but by improving itself."
But then you contradict yourself with:
"If McDonald's has an opportunity to convince Burger King to cancel
their hamburger, shouldn't they try?"
So on the one hand you think it's perfectly reasonable for corporations
to "win" by sabotaging others (unethical "competition"), rather than
just improving themselves and "winning" purely on the merit of their own
work (ethical competition), without underhand interference in other
companies' business, but OTOH you criticise people for attacking
Microsoft for doing this, rather than (as you see it) getting their own
house in order.
That's exactly the sort of hypocrisy that lends weight to the idea that
your viewpoint is heavily biased, not to mention morally bankrupt.
It's isn't for companies to "compete" by blowing each other up, any more
than it's for people to make money by robbing banks or selling narcotics
to children. "Winning" is not its own justification for terrorising the
rest of society, which is why those particular sorts of "winners" need
to be prosecuted and shut down.
Those who suffer at the hands of Microsoft's corruption do not have a
"victim mentality", they /are/ victims. The sort of methods Microsoft
employs to "compete" are profoundly immoral, and on many occasions
actually illegal. That is not acceptable business conduct, to anyone
with any scruples, at least.
And the fact that "other people do it" is no excuse either. "Other
people" commit all sorts of crimes every day, that doesn't mean we
should embrace that criminal activity as acceptable.
Microsoft are thugs in the industry, many people have said so (most
recently Salesforce.com's CEO Marc Benioff). It's a description rarely
attributed to any other company in the computer industry. Microsoft are
not only unique in their power and wealth, but are also corrupt to a
degree unmatched by any other in the industry. That's a particularly
nasty combination, and thus Microsoft is a very serious problem ...
enemy number one, if you will. And not just the enemy of Free Software
either, but pretty much the enemy of /every/ other company in the
industry, including their own "partners".
Here's what one of those "partners" had to say about them:
[quote]
Gateway also faulted another provision of the new licensing agreement,
which requires PC makers to pay a Windows royalty on every PC shipped,
even if it didn't include Windows. To top it off, to qualify for market
development funds, PC makers have to put a Microsoft OS on every PC. As
a result, trying to sell non-Windows PCs, or even PCs without software,
is a financial loser for computer makers.
[/quote]
http://news.cnet.com/Gateway-exec-Microsoft-too-powerful/2100-1016_3-868413.html
That's not "business", it's racketeering.
But then, you really "don't care" about that sort of thing, do you?
--
K. | "Linux hackers are on a mission
http://slated.org | from God" ~ The Vatican
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky |
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 79 days | http://tinyurl.com/linuxmission
Chris Ahlstrom
> The free software army of millions is losing to Microsoft's army of
> thousands for a number of reasons and anger towards Microsoft is a
> part of it.
LOL
--
I don't know anything about music. In my line you don't have to.
-- Elvis Presley
flatfish+++
Hahaha!
Good Rope-A-Dope [Homer]..
I'm still laughing....
FWIW I don't support companies sabotaging other companies.
I believe in letting the market decide.
The Microsoft issue is a complex one.
I certainly don't agree with the DRDOS stunts and so forth but I also
have no problem with them buying up companies, using the technology and
then dissolving the company.
That's business.
flatfish+++
> KeithCu wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> The free software army of millions is losing to Microsoft's army of
>> thousands for a number of reasons and anger towards Microsoft is a
>> part of it.
>
> LOL
He's actually correct, but since you are part of the problem you'll
never see it Liarmutt.
Point is (I think this is what he means), you Linturds are spending so
much time attacking Microsoft that you are in fact taking away from
developing and advocating Linux.
You are in effect wasting your time because the only people listening,
and 20 years of Linux failing, proves this, is the choir you are
preaching to.
To the outside world of average computer users you look like crazies.
chrisv
> KeithCu wrote:
>>
>> The free software army of millions is losing to Microsoft's army of
>> thousands for a number of reasons and anger towards Microsoft is a
>> part of it.
>
>LOL
Is there an echo in here?
I keep hearing the classic M$ apologist's refrain of "don't blame
Micro$oft for your failures".
Yeah, the path of destruction that M$ has left in its wake (e.g.
Borland, Quarterdeck, Digital Research, Netscape) is all due to the
superior quality and value of M$ products, and *nothing*to do with
dirty-dealing. They are simply smarter and harder-working than
*everyone* else, you know.
flatfish+++
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> KeithCu wrote:
>>>
>>> The free software army of millions is losing to Microsoft's army of
>>> thousands for a number of reasons and anger towards Microsoft is a
>>> part of it.
>>
>>LOL
>
> Is there an echo in here?
No.
But there are some of Linturd morons squawking like stuck pigs.
KeithCu
>
> That's not "business", it's racketeering.
>
> But then, you really "don't care" about that sort of thing, do you?
If you go to a BMW dealership don't be surprised if they say bad
things about Mercedes Benz. I do not focus on what is moral in
business. I focus on technical stuff. If you want to read about
ethics, I can recommend Aristotle or the Bible. I had plenty to write
about already.
You seem to attach a bunch of emotions towards MS and me. And you seem
to have opinions of Microsoft based mostly on a few quotes from a few
people over a few years. Your quote is from 2002. I'm not endorsing
what everyone said and did. But Microsoft success came from the
software more than the "racketeering". People wanted Windows. They
still do. MS changed their license agreements many years ago -- did it
change the marketshare?
-Keith
KeithCu
> Yeah, the path of destruction that M$ has left in its wake (e.g.
> Borland, Quarterdeck, Digital Research, Netscape) is all due to the
> superior quality and value of M$ products, and *nothing*to do with
> dirty-dealing. They are simply smarter and harder-working than
> *everyone* else, you know.
Dirty dealing had little to do with it. People preferred Word to
WordPerfect, Visual Studio to Eclipse, etc.
Note all those companies wrote proprietary software, so that was also
part of their downfall. They made other mistakes besides. I could talk
to you about many mistakes by Borland as I worked on a competing
product.
I believe you could have gotten rid of all the dirty dealings and it
wouldn't have changed anything. The consent decree went into effect
many years ago and it hasn't changed anything..
-Keith
chrisv
>I believe
What a Micro$oft apologist like you claims to believe means nothing to
me.
"People wanted Windows."
*Guffaw* What choice did they have?
They may have wanted BeOS, too, if it had been allowed to see the
light of day.
"MS changed their license agreements many years ago -- did it
change the marketshare?"
Too *stupid* to understand that it may have been then too late by
then, to fight an entrenched monopoly.
Snit
9:50 AM:
Hence the reason why Apple is doing so poorly.
Notice how Jobs and Apple do not blame MS for their problems... they *act*.
They *innovate*. They make products people want. And people come flocking
to them and their products - even though, unlike desktop Linux, their
products are not cheap (they are, in fact, some of the most expensive on the
market). Even in a recession - a deep recession - Apple has done very well,
going against most people's expectations.
Desktop Linux has done... not so well. In a recession, and with the
problems MS had with Vista, any less expensive options which were truly
viable would "win" - would gain many users and have large word of mouth
support. And, to some extent, this has happened - Linux is in the news more
and I do hear of it more often. But its user base percentage has stayed low
- maybe inching slightly forward but not much.
This is not the fault of some boogie man but of what desktop Linux offers: a
lack of focus, a lack of developer support, a lack of a professionally made
UI (though notice how KDE, Gnome and others are trying to change that view),
etc.
OSS developers have to *earn* a place on Joe Average's desktop. Is it hard?
Of course! It is a well established market place and entering it is not
easy - but it is not owed to you or anyone else. I think Keynote is far and
away better than PowerPoint - but nobody owes Apple to buy it and use it.
Nobody. I think OS X is far better than Windows - but MS does not owe it to
Apple to make sure OS X gets a fair shot in the market.
Frankly the whiny the-world-owes-me BS from the Linux "advocates" of COLA,
and elsewhere (though it is not as extreme in most places) is a huge turnoff
for people trying OSS. The "advocates" push people away by their snotty
attitude.
You want users: *earn* them. You want developers: *earn* them.
Stop whining and blaming others for your lack of success.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chris Ahlstrom
> On May 5, 8:55?am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, the path of destruction that M$ has left in its wake (e.g.
>> Borland, Quarterdeck, Digital Research, Netscape) is all due to the
>> superior quality and value of M$ products, and *nothing*to do with
>> dirty-dealing. ?They are simply smarter and harder-working than
>> *everyone* else, you know.
>
> Dirty dealing had little to do with it. People preferred Word to
> WordPerfect, Visual Studio to Eclipse, etc.
>
> Note all those companies wrote proprietary software, so that was also
> part of their downfall. They made other mistakes besides. I could talk
> to you about many mistakes by Borland as I worked on a competing
> product.
Like, er, Visual C++. How's old Jim McCarthy anyway? I'll bet he still
gets a glow from thinking about how you guys *killed* Borland.
> I believe you could have gotten rid of all the dirty dealings and it
> wouldn't have changed anything. The consent decree went into effect
> many years ago and it hasn't changed anything..
Why would it? All the competitors were already dead.
Only Apple and "open source" are making any headway against MS these days.
--
Common sense is the most evenly distributed quantity in the world.
Everyone thinks he has enough.
-- Descartes, 1637
Chris Ahlstrom
Has "Hadron" cozied up to you yet?
--
* Simunye is so happy she has her mothers gene's
<Dellaran> you better give them back before she misses them!
flatfish+++
> On May 5, 8:10 am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>
>> That's not "business", it's racketeering.
>>
>> But then, you really "don't care" about that sort of thing, do you?
>
> If you go to a BMW dealership don't be surprised if they say bad
> things about Mercedes Benz.
Maybe 20 years ago.
Not these days.
In fact if you try talking bad about the competition the salesman will
probably change the topic of the conversation.
DFS
> On May 3, 1:10 am, Homer<use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> The more I read this, the more I'm convinced it's just a pro-Microsoft /
>> libertarian propaganda peice. Take this extremely obvious example from
>> the 24-page "Afterword" section:
>>
>
> Calling my book pro-Microsoft is crazy talk.
That's just [H]ypocrite being [H]ypocrite: miserable and insane.
> But
> Microsoft's success didn't come from that at all. It came from the
> programmers. If you had worked in the company you'd see it very
> differently.
nah... it came from their lies, theft, fraud, extortion, blackmail, FUD,
illegal monopolizing, and racketeering...
> The trial was a distraction for Microsoft, but seems a greater
> distraction for the outside community. Linux wins, not by changing
> anything inside Microsoft, or getting upset about their behavior, but
> by improving itself.
> Wikipedia took over very quickly.
Yes. That's because it's online and easy to search and contribute, and
it's free (note: I donated $20 to wiki foundation). On the other hand,
switching to Linux is a pain for most people.
By the way, Linux will NEVER supplant Windows. You might as well quit
daydreaming about that non-event ever occurring.
> I think Linux has people with a victim mentality.
How right you are (for a change).
Many of the whiny Linux victims landed here in cola, drooling year after
year about Microsoft holding Linux and computing back.
Of course, by day most of them use Windows to make a living, and refuse
to find Linux jobs.
DFS
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 07:34:12 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> KeithCu wrote:
>
>>> I think Linux has people with a victim mentality.
>>
>> What you think doesn't mean much.
>
> He is correct though.
He is 100% correct. Anti-MS Linux whiners are pathetic.
And that silly victim attitude and MS-hatred is one of the first things
you notice when you read articles by pro-Linux writers.
> One look at COLA will prove that beyond doubt.
>
> Linux "advocates" love to blame others for Linux's failures.
>
> They really have no choice. Once you get past Linux being free, what
> else is there?
> You certainly can't talk about applications because the good ones, like
> gimp for example, are also available for Windows as well.
>
> Advocating Linux = blaming Microsoft.
Bilk, for instance, is so victimized and "conspiratorized" that he can't
fathom anybody debating against Linux that isn't a Microsoft employee.
It's absurd.
DFS
> KeithCu wrote:
>
>> I believe
>
> What a Micro$oft apologist like you claims to believe means nothing to
> me.
>
> "People wanted Windows."
>
> *Guffaw* What choice did they have?
>
> They may have wanted BeOS, too, if it had been allowed to see the
> light of day.
1) it's nobody's fault but BeOS that they couldn't make their product
popular.
2) shitheads like you do whatever you can to support Microsoft:
"I buy a lot of Windows PC's to use as test stations, and I've been
buying refurbished XP machines and have no plans to change."
Why don't you buy a lot of Linux systems to use as test stations?
3) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
> "MS changed their license agreements many years ago -- did it
> change the marketshare?"
>
> Too *stupid* to understand that it may have been then too late by
> then, to fight an entrenched monopoly.
A few days ago 7 insisted Linux now ships on 1/3 of all PCs.
[H]ypocrite [H]omer claimed in 2003 that "half of European governments
dumped Windows"
Dumb Willie insisted that MS says 14% of all computer users run Linux.
7 and HPT have made similar claims about Linux user share.
Linux "advocate" Chris Hunter says "the entire German government, French
government, most of Scandinavia, /all/ of China, much of India..."
switched to Linux
Dumb Willie said Brazil switched to Linux.
Dell sold Linux systems 12 years ago, and still does today.
So what monopoly were and are you talking about, you ignorant whining turd?
Homer
>> KeithCu wrote:
>>> Wikipedia took over very quickly.
>>
>> Yeah, that's comparable. Not.
>
> The biggest difference is greater software transition costs
No, the biggest difference is Microsoft doesn't have the power to stymie
Web services that compete with their software, whereas the documented
proof shows they do in fact have the power to stymie competing software
at the OEM and retail level.
> Thinking you are a victim can be a massive distraction
Being attacked by Microsoft is a much bigger distraction.
> which prevents you from working on what you should be.
And naturally Microsoft's monopolistic practices has nothing to do with
that, right?
You're utterly delusional.
> How much energy did Netscape and Sun expend on the DOJ trial? What did
> it get them
Not as far as it should have.
> and what did it cost them?
Well if justice had actually been served, it should have cost them
nothing.
And just for clarification, the one and only reason justice wasn't
served was because the judge made a single error in judgement (expressed
his opinion to a reporter, before the official declaration). IOW
Microsoft got off on a technicality.
No doubt this equates to Microsoft being "innocent" in your morally
bankrupt opinion.
> How much energy do geeks expend discussing patent risks which never
> materialize?
You mean like the patent risk that's currently threatening Barnes and
Noble's ability to sell Linux-based products?
> The free software army of millions is losing to Microsoft's army of
> thousands
And its billions of dollars in resources, and its army of lawyers, and
its exclusion contracts with its channel "partners", and its lobbyists,
and its patent-troll shell companies like IP Innovation LLC, and its
fake "grass-roots" organisations like "Americans for Technology
Leadership", and its sponsored consortia of vulture capitalists like
CPTN Holdings LLC.
Or did you seriously believe this was just about software engineers?
In fact very little of what Microsoft does is "software engineering", or
even anything to do with software at all. As Microsoft's European
business security product manager, Arno Edelmann, once said "Usually
Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products".
Microsoft isn't a software company, it's an asset harvester that
sabotages, plunders and assassinates its way to "success". The "product"
is irrelevant to them, beyond the fact it's one they managed to
monopolise. They could be insurance salesmen for all the difference it
makes. It's all just about easy money by any means possible, legal or
otherwise.
> for a number of reasons and anger towards Microsoft is a part of it.
Fully justified anger, of course.
> Victims become angry because they are in a situation they cannot
> change
Well we certainly won't change anything if we rely on revisionists and
denialists like you to support the cause.
> and anger saps productive energy.
On the contrary, it only makes me more determined.
Hadron
> Verily I say unto thee, that KeithCu spake thusly:
>
>> The free software army of millions is losing to Microsoft's army of
>> thousands
>
> And its billions of dollars in resources, and its army of lawyers, and
> its exclusion contracts with its channel "partners", and its
> lobbyists,
And its project managers and organisation. Millions of people pulling in
different directions is not efficient. Wow are you guys dense...
Also you 'tards STILL seem to forget that the HUGE amount of OSS
programmers contribute to Windows too. How can this be so difficult for
you to understand?!?!?!
Talk about Dumb & Dumber.
Homer
>
>> Yeah, the path of destruction that M$ has left in its wake (e.g.
>> Borland, Quarterdeck, Digital Research, Netscape) is all due to the
>> superior quality and value of M$ products, and *nothing*to do with
>> dirty-dealing. They are simply smarter and harder-working than
>> *everyone* else, you know.
>
> Dirty dealing had little to do with it.
Bullshit.
Are you just going to keep ignoring the reams of evidence (including
court evidence) that proves Microsoft's entire business strategy is
corrupt, and always has been, from way back when they inserted fake
error messages into Windows 3.1 to sabotage DR-DOS, right up to their
present-day patent racketeering?
Homer
>>
>> That's not "business", it's racketeering.
>>
>> But then, you really "don't care" about that sort of thing, do you?
>
> If you go to a BMW dealership don't be surprised if they say bad
> things about Mercedes Benz.
No, but do they prevent every car dealership in the world from selling
Mercedes Benz cars?
You may have noticed that, unlike operating system vendors, no car
manufacturer in the world has a monopoly.
> I do not focus on what is moral in business.
Focus is nothing to do with it. Presumably you are at least human, and
therefore you should care about such things, particularly as they relate
to your other interests.
> I focus on technical stuff. If you want to read about ethics, I can
> recommend Aristotle or the Bible. I had plenty to write about already.
I don't need to read Aristotle or the Bible to understand that
Microsoft's racketeering is wrong.
> You seem to attach a bunch of emotions towards MS and me.
They've stolen from me, and subjugated me WRT my choices as a computer
consumer, so yes I feel passionate about that, because I'm not a morally
bankrupt "pragmatist" like you. I look around and see how many others
are affected by Microsoft's corruption WRT the same issues, and many
other issues, and feel great sympathy for their predicament too, because
(again) unlike you I am compassionate, and outraged by corruption.
> And you seem to have opinions of Microsoft based mostly on a few
> quotes from a few people over a few years.
It's rather more than "a few". Did you actually read any of it? The
unabridged history of WWII is probably a shorter read.
And like I said, I have very personal reasons for despising Microsoft
too. Every time I buy a PC, and I'm forced to pay for their software
without option or recourse, which I don't want and will never use,
AFAIAC they have stolen from me.
Back when I did use Windows, Microsoft deliberately and maliciously
disabled my hardware via an automatic "update" of their WHQL-certified
Nvidia drivers, at the behest of a third party (Macromedia), as a matter
of policy rather than technical requirements. My only option was to
either throw away perfectly functional (and expensive) hardware, or live
with a system that either couldn't play DVDs or couldn't play games,
depending on which of Hobson's choices I elected for.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1010817/nvidia-macrovision-dvd-tv-rules-forced-consumers
Fortunately there was a third option ... GNU/Linux.
Now Microsoft is attacking Android with vicious and bogus patent
trolling, which promised a future platform free from Microsoft's
clutches - a platform I use every day. They did the same thing to
netbooks, and are doing the same thing to tablets.
They injected their toxic "IP" into Free Software, by infiltrating the
community via traitors like Miguel de Icaza, who indoctrinates people to
support Microsoft and attack Richard Stallman, the Free Software
Foundation and the GNU Foundation (at one point he even supported a
threat to withdraw Gnome from GNU, primarily motivated by his preference
for Microsoft over Free Software).
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/12/12/135209/GNOME-Developer-Suggests-Split-From-GNU-Project
This only drains talent and mindshare from Free Software, including
people I actually used to work with, and corrupts them into Microsoft
apologists and "Technology Evangelists" who help Microsoft with its
stated mission to "win share against Linux and OpenOffice.org by
designing and driving marketing programs, changing perceptions, engaging
with Open Source communities and organizations".
As a GNU/Linux and Free Software user and contributor, this sort of
thing is /very/ personal to me, just as it is to me as a consumer who is
robbed for software I don't want and will never use.
> Your quote is from 2002.
Here's one from 2011:
[quote]
Microsoft has asserted patents that extend only to arbitrary, outmoded,
or non-essential design features, but uses these patents to demand that
every manufacturer of an Android-based mobile device take a license from
Microsoft and pay exorbitant licensing fees or face protracted and
expensive patent infringement litigation.
...
Microsoft did not invent, research, develop, or make available to the
public mobile devices employing the AndroidTM Operating System and other
open source operating systems, but nevertheless seeks to dominate
something it did not invent. On information and belief, Microsoft
intends to take and has taken definite steps towards making competing
operating systems such as the AndroidTM Operating System unusable and
unattractive to both consumers and device manufacturers through
exorbitant license fees and absurd licensing restrictions that bear no
relation to the scope and subject matter of its own patents.
...
On information and belief, to perpetuate this scheme, Microsoft and its
agents, including spokesman and chief executive officer Mr. Steven
Ballmer, have publicly stated that through its patents Microsoft can
dominate, control, and exclude from the market the AndroidTM Operating
System, other open source operating systems, and open source
applications such as Google Chrome. These statements are unjustified in
view of the scope of Microsoft’s patents. Moreover, neither Microsoft
nor Mr. Ballmer has ever identified to the American public the basis for
these grand assertions of dominance.
On information and belief, Microsoft intends to utilize its patents to
control the activities of and extract fees from the designers,
developers, and manufacturers of devices, including tablets, eReaders,
and other mobile devices, that employ the AndroidTM Operating System.
On information and belief, Microsoft has falsely and without
justification asserted that its patents somehow provide it with the
right to prohibit device manufacturers from employing new versions of
the AndroidTM Operating System, or third party software.
Without support or justification, Microsoft has communicated to the
public through press releases and other public statements (including
press releases relating to this very action) that the AndroidTM
Operating System generally infringes Microsoft’s patents, and that all
device manufacturers employing the AndroidTM Operating System must
either pay Microsoft’s exorbitant licensing fees or face costly and
protracted patent infringement litigation.
On information and belief, Microsoft’s assertion of complete and total
control and dominance over the AndroidTM Operating System is entirely
unjustified and finds no root in any supposed patents identified or even
possessed by Microsoft.
[/quote]
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110427052238659
Here's another:
[quote]
Microsoft is turning to royalty fees in an attempt to prevent Taiwanese
OEMs Acer and Asustek Computer from using Android and Chrome OS on
netbooks.
DigiTimes has the scoop:
Microsoft plans to impose royalty fees on Taiwan-based vendors of
Android handsets for using its patents in e-mail, multimedia and other
functions, with Acer and Asustek Computer being targets in an actual
attempt to prevent the two vendors from adopting Android and Chrome OS
for their netbook and tablet PCs, according to Taiwan-based makers.
It seems that since Microsoft managed to squeeze a deal out of HTC to be
able to use Microsoft patents in its handsets, this left Acer and
Asustek in the firing line. The charge, which amounts to around $10-15
per device, is intended to dissuade vendors using the open-source
platforms, according to the Taiwanese OEMs.
Microsoft asserts that the Android platform infringes on certain
Microsoft patents, but as is always the case, the actual infringement is
never clearly disclosed.
[/quote]
And another:
[quote]
Benioff was asked whether Microsoft's lawsuit would impact business.
Technically, Benioff was just asked about "the lawsuit," but it was
clear that Microsoft's patent move was the subject. Benioff said the
suit wouldn't derail the company's focus and added:
The reality is that these patent trolls are unfortunately just part
of doing business and technology these days. They're basically the alley
thugs.
[/quote]
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-20005581-92.html
> I'm not endorsing what everyone said and did.
You don't seem to be especially critical of it either.
> But Microsoft success came from the software more than the
> "racketeering".
Bullshit. Windows is infamous for its BSODs, corrupt Registry, bloat,
DLL hell, viruses, pathetic security, and crippling slowness. It's not
like I've never used it, so I'm not guessing. Software that shit doesn't
become "popular", it only becomes /ubiquitous/ by corrupt means.
> People wanted Windows. They still do.
Rubbish. I've never met a Windows user in real life who actually /liked/
it. The best they could ever claim is that they tolerated it, usually
because of some third-party software they (or their employer) claimed
they needed. Those who actually discover and try the alternatives
usually admit their initial claims were premature, but by that point
they've already been forced to pay for Windows as an inescapable
consequence of just buying a PC, and their attitude is "I already paid
for it, so I might as well use it".
/That/ is the reason for Windows' "popularity". Nobody I know personally
has ever "demanded" Windows. They get it without option every time they
buy a PC, which is why I'm deeply suspicious of anonymous and faceless
individuals on the Internet who claim otherwise, especially those who
openly admit to having worked for Microsoft.
> MS changed their license agreements many years ago
Yes, they changed them from an explicit contractual requirement for OEMs
to exclude competing software, to crippling financial penalties if they
did so, via reduced volume discounts and "marketing assistance"
(Microsoft's code phrase for "bribe"). The net effect is identical.
Here's some more examples of Microsoft's "marketing assistance" in
action:
[quote]
Mandriva had closed a deal in mid-August to provide a customised Linux
operating system and support for 17,000 Intel Classmate PCs intended for
Nigerian schools, but found out last week that the company deploying the
computers for the government, Technology Support Center (TSC), planned
to wipe the computers' disks and install Windows XP instead.
Now, however, a government agency funding 11,000 of the PCs has
overruled the supplier. Nigeria's Universal Service Provision Fund
(USPF) wants to keep Mandriva Linux on the Classmate PCs, said an
official who identified himself as the programme manager for USPF's
Classmate PCs project.
[page 2]
Mba-Uzoukwu wrote that Microsoft is still negotiating an agreement that
would give TSC US$400,000 (£190,323) for marketing activities around the
Classmate PCs when those computers are converted to Windows.
[/quote]
[quote]
Microsoft Corp. admitted Wednesday that an employee at its Swedish
subsidiary offered monetary compensation to partners for voting in favor
of the Office Open XML document format's approval as an ISO standard.
...
But bloggers claiming to have been present at the SIS meeting wrote
(here and here) that more than 20 companies showed up in the waning
moments of the meeting with the sole intent of voting in favor of Open
XML.
The story was reported on Tuesday by an IDG sister publication, Computer
Sweden. Excerpts of the Computer Sweden article in English are available
online.
According to one report, SIS only requires companies to pay a membership
fee equivalent to about US$2,500 to join. The vast majority of the
companies that joined SIS at the last moment to vote in favor of Open
XML, according to that report, are Microsoft certified partners.
Computer Sweden reported that the monetary compensation Microsoft was
offering would have been in the form of "market subsidies" and other
resources to make up for the SIS membership fee.
[/quote]
http://www.pcworld.com/article/136627/microsoft_employee_offered_incentives_for_ooxml_support.html
> did it change the marketshare?
Microsoft's corrupt tactics haven't changed, therefore neither has the
market.
flatfish+++
Bilk is a nut on a totally different level of kookdom.
He has his own perch in the crazy cage.
While some of the regular kooks in COLA say some bizarre things, I doubt
they truly believe much of it. They are just arguing for the sake of
arguing or trolling.
Bilk on the other hand really does believe his paranoid crap.
flatfish+++
If I remember correctly, BEOS was for sale in CompUSA.
It didn't sell.
Neither did GEOS which was a rather nice GUI enviornment written mostly
in assembler code.
KeithCu
> KeithCu wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
> > On May 5, 8:55?am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Yeah, the path of destruction that M$ has left in its wake (e.g.
> >> Borland, Quarterdeck, Digital Research, Netscape) is all due to the
> >> superior quality and value of M$ products, and *nothing*to do with
> >> dirty-dealing. ?They are simply smarter and harder-working than
> >> *everyone* else, you know.
>
> > Dirty dealing had little to do with it. People preferred Word to
> > WordPerfect, Visual Studio to Eclipse, etc.
>
> > Note all those companies wrote proprietary software, so that was also
> > part of their downfall. They made other mistakes besides. I could talk
> > to you about many mistakes by Borland as I worked on a competing
> > product.
>
> Like, er, Visual C++. How's old Jim McCarthy anyway? I'll bet he still
> gets a glow from thinking about how you guys *killed* Borland.
Borland was trying to kill MS. That is what programmers did. They
added features in hopes of converting people.
>
> > I believe you could have gotten rid of all the dirty dealings and it
> > wouldn't have changed anything. The consent decree went into effect
> > many years ago and it hasn't changed anything..
>
> Why would it? All the competitors were already dead.
The competitors in the DOJ trial are still around: Apple, Netscape /
Mozilla, Sun / Oracle, etc. The reason things haven't changed is
because people want Windows on Gateway.
Why doesn't Gateway support Linux? Is that still Microsoft's fault?
>
> Only Apple and "open source" are making any headway against MS these days.
And Apple uses a lot of free software.
-Keith
KeithCu
>
> Microsoft isn't a software company, it's an asset harvester that
> sabotages, plunders and assassinates its way to "success". The "product"
> is irrelevant to them, beyond the fact it's one they managed to
> monopolise. They could be insurance salesmen for all the difference it
> makes. It's all just about easy money by any means possible, legal or
> otherwise.
That is hysteria. The most immoral thing Microsoft does is not support
free software. Everything else is irrelevant by comparison.
>
> > for a number of reasons and anger towards Microsoft is a part of it.
>
> Fully justified anger, of course.
>
> > Victims become angry because they are in a situation they cannot
> > change
>
> Well we certainly won't change anything if we rely on revisionists and
> denialists like you to support the cause.
I don't deny it. I agree some of the executives were ruthless and told
lies during the trial. But I just think it is irrelevant to their
success and not worth thinking about. I run Linux, and Linux only gets
better as people work on it. MS will not improve free software very
much, so I don't consider them.
>
> > and anger saps productive energy.
>
> On the contrary, it only makes me more determined.
To do the wrong things.
-Keith
KeithCu
> Verily I say unto thee, that KeithCu spake thusly:
>
> > On May 5, 8:55 am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Yeah, the path of destruction that M$ has left in its wake (e.g.
> >> Borland, Quarterdeck, Digital Research, Netscape) is all due to the
> >> superior quality and value of M$ products, and *nothing*to do with
> >> dirty-dealing. They are simply smarter and harder-working than
> >> *everyone* else, you know.
>
> > Dirty dealing had little to do with it.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Are you just going to keep ignoring the reams of evidence (including
> court evidence) that proves Microsoft's entire business strategy is
> corrupt, and always has been, from way back when they inserted fake
> error messages into Windows 3.1 to sabotage DR-DOS, right up to their
> present-day patent racketeering?
>
I'm not saying it didn't happen. What I'm saying is that it isn't why
Microsoft succeeded. The BMW salesman might tell you a lie, and he
should not, especially if he is the only car-maker in town, but you
probably would have bought the car anyway.
-Keith
KeithCu
> chrisv stated in post jvk5s6dilur3bcqdvvm91eekvhvm2sr...@4ax.com on 5/5/11
This is well stated. I am not an apologist for MS. I'm not a denialist
either, as if Windows is akin to genocide, rather than something that
makes a computer more useful than a boat anchor. Success is in our
hands and it has been since GPL v1. It is Gateway's stupidity, and
ours for not educating them, that they don't support Linux. Even years
after the DOJ trial, they don't support Linux. I just think many of
you have been distracted by something irrelevant. Even today!
Homer
>> KeithCu wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>> Note all those companies wrote proprietary software, so that was
>>> also part of their downfall. They made other mistakes besides. I
>>> could talk to you about many mistakes by Borland as I worked on a
>>> competing product.
>>
>> Like, er, Visual C++. How's old Jim McCarthy anyway? I'll bet he
>> still gets a glow from thinking about how you guys *killed* Borland.
>
> Borland was trying to kill MS.
Why would a development software company try to "kill" an OS company,
especially one that was the primary platform it sold its products for?
> That is what programmers did.
No, that's what Microsoft did. Normal companies just make things,
Microsoft OTOH only seems to want to "kill" things.
> The competitors in the DOJ trial are still around: Apple, Netscape /
> Mozilla, Sun / Oracle, etc.
Right, so because Microsoft's victims survived their assault, that means
the assault never happened, right?
> The reason things haven't changed is because people want Windows on
> Gateway.
Bullshit.
Microsoft spent years entrenching their monopoly, and still enforce it
today with financial penalties. Just because you can't see Microsoft
still digging that trench doesn't mean it's not still there, with
companies like Dell and Gateway trapped in it, and Microsoft marching up
and down the trench with a rifle.
> Why doesn't Gateway support Linux? Is that still Microsoft's fault?
Yes. Can Microsoft magically undo the past to repair the present?
>> Only Apple and "open source" are making any headway against MS these
>> days.
>
> And Apple uses a lot of free software.
But virtually nobody sells GNU/Linux on the desktop, despite repeated
demands for it.
Moreover, no retailer ever even askes its customers what OS they'd like
at the Point Of Sale, if any.
--
K. | "Linux hackers are on a mission
http://slated.org | from God" ~ The Vatican
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky |
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 80 days | http://tinyurl.com/linuxmission
flatfish+++
> Verily I say unto thee, that KeithCu spake thusly:
>> On May 5, 10:40 am, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstr...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>>> KeithCu wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>>>> Note all those companies wrote proprietary software, so that was
>>>> also part of their downfall. They made other mistakes besides. I
>>>> could talk to you about many mistakes by Borland as I worked on a
>>>> competing product.
>>>
>>> Like, er, Visual C++. How's old Jim McCarthy anyway? I'll bet he
>>> still gets a glow from thinking about how you guys *killed* Borland.
>>
>> Borland was trying to kill MS.
>
> Why would a development software company try to "kill" an OS company,
> especially one that was the primary platform it sold its products for?
At the time Borland's claim to fame was inexpensive compilers compared
to what Microsoft and IBM was offering, C in particular although Pascal
was their baby. They also had excellent documentation.
Then there was Quattro Pro of course, which was superior to Excel and
123 at the time..
Borland made some poor business decisions and thus went under, more or
less.
KeithCu
> Verily I say unto thee, that KeithCu spake thusly:
>
> > On May 5, 10:40 am, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstr...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> >> KeithCu wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> >>> Note all those companies wrote proprietary software, so that was
> >>> also part of their downfall. They made other mistakes besides. I
> >>> could talk to you about many mistakes by Borland as I worked on a
> >>> competing product.
>
> >> Like, er, Visual C++. How's old Jim McCarthy anyway? I'll bet he
> >> still gets a glow from thinking about how you guys *killed* Borland.
>
> > Borland was trying to kill MS.
>
> Why would a development software company try to "kill" an OS company,
> especially one that was the primary platform it sold its products for?
>
> > That is what programmers did.
>
> No, that's what Microsoft did. Normal companies just make things,
> Microsoft OTOH only seems to want to "kill" things.
I never used that formulation. My job was to add features. That is
what most everyone's job was. Kill is just a metaphor.
>
> > The competitors in the DOJ trial are still around: Apple, Netscape /
> > Mozilla, Sun / Oracle, etc.
>
> Right, so because Microsoft's victims survived their assault, that means
> the assault never happened, right?
>
> > The reason things haven't changed is because people want Windows on
> > Gateway.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Microsoft spent years entrenching their monopoly, and still enforce it
> today with financial penalties. Just because you can't see Microsoft
> still digging that trench doesn't mean it's not still there, with
> companies like Dell and Gateway trapped in it, and Microsoft marching up
> and down the trench with a rifle.
Gateway and Dell don't support Linux because they accept the premise
of Microsoft and Google and others that proprietary software is
overall superior. It is about the "conventional wisdom" more than what
you describe about Microsoft's behaviors, which are highly regulated
today.
Today certainly it is not Microsoft's fault that Gateway is not a
stronger supporter of Linux. And it was always that case. The way to
get Gateway to support Linux is not to attack Microsoft, or argue
about the fine print of their license agreements, are whether someone
told a lie, etc. Don't spend the game arguing with the referee.
>
> > Why doesn't Gateway support Linux? Is that still Microsoft's fault?
>
> Yes. Can Microsoft magically undo the past to repair the present?
The much bigger problem today and before is that Gateway doesn't see
Linux as hugely in their interest.
>
> >> Only Apple and "open source" are making any headway against MS these
> >> days.
>
> > And Apple uses a lot of free software.
>
> But virtually nobody sells GNU/Linux on the desktop, despite repeated
> demands for it.
It is because they are following the same behavior they've always
done. They've known about Linux for a long time, they just never
really realized it was superior and they should do their part. Michael
Dell doesn't believe Linux the way you do. If he did, he would act so
much better. Microsoft just sells him the new stuff because he's too
lazy to look around. And where does he look to talk to someone: Mark
Shuttleworth? The current DPL? Linus? Michael Dell doesn't realize
that he should probably be building a Dell Linux. That idea has
apparently never occurred to him.
>
> Moreover, no retailer ever even askes its customers what OS they'd like
> at the Point Of Sale, if any.
They are afraid of Linux. Windows is so hard for users already, and
then there's the Mac, and they run out of interest. They don't
understand it either. But it also needs to get better. The shoppers at
CompUSA aren't going to make Linux any better.
There are many places to look for problems, beyond quotes from 2002.
-Keith
KeithCu
> On Fri, 6 May 2011 02:11:34 +0100, Homer wrote:
> > Verily I say unto thee, that KeithCu spake thusly:
> >> On May 5, 10:40 am, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstr...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> >>> KeithCu wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
> >>>> Note all those companies wrote proprietary software, so that was
> >>>> also part of their downfall. They made other mistakes besides. I
> >>>> could talk to you about many mistakes by Borland as I worked on a
> >>>> competing product.
>
> >>> Like, er, Visual C++. How's old Jim McCarthy anyway? I'll bet he
> >>> still gets a glow from thinking about how you guys *killed* Borland.
>
> >> Borland was trying to kill MS.
>
> > Why would a development software company try to "kill" an OS company,
> > especially one that was the primary platform it sold its products for?
>
> At the time Borland's claim to fame was inexpensive compilers compared
> to what Microsoft and IBM was offering, C in particular although Pascal
> was their baby. They also had excellent documentation.
> Then there was Quattro Pro of course, which was superior to Excel and
> 123 at the time..
>
> Borland made some poor business decisions and thus went under, more or
> less.
They were also a proprietary software company. It is a lot harder to
succeed as a proprietary company. In fact it is almost impossible.
Well, you can have one, but even another Bill Gates cannot build upon
the advancements of the first.
Hey, does that sentence sound familiar? Similar to the sentence that
Microsoft is "basically the last mass-market desktop proprietary
software company standing". Something like that lovely sentence you
guys helped me improve. Well, you can see that it is related. If
Borland had been a free software company, they'd still be around and
their codebases would still be around. People still like the Pascal
language.
So I realize some of you think I'm pro-Microsoft and telling lies, but
I'm trying to communicate larger ideas to people who don't know any of
this. (And you guys seem to not realize some of it sometimes.) And a
few more ideas I'm sneaking in there.
Note, it isn't about me. My book just contains a list of workitems for
other people. This is a Do-ocracy and I'm just one person making a
list. Everything in there is known by other people. I can be helpful
and want to be helpful.
I could make a stronger proof of a space elevator in 7 years. I have
just a few paragraphs now. I could add some more words from Brad
Edwards on why carbon nanotubes are easier than everyone thinks.
Atomically precise manufacturing: you got any answers on speeding that
up? Is it Moore's law or can we do something faster? There are plenty
of ways to make it stronger. Your bugs so far are just a few hours.
But none of it is propaganda. I don't ask you to agree to every
sentence. I only ask you consider the ideas for yourself like you do
every other sentence in your life.
I didn't realize that perhaps many people would read my book who hate
Microsoft. I will try to keep that idea in mind more for my next
release. Maybe I could stamp with a warning? The good stuff I say
about Microsoft is only so that people are aware of what I think I
learned. It made sense to write it down for what may come of it. No
good deed goes unpunished.
-Keith
DFS
> They were also a proprietary software company. It is a lot harder to
> succeed as a proprietary company. In fact it is almost impossible.
JHC!
How could MS employ a nitwit like you for 11 years?
Snit
093c1cc5-5310-4db1...@h36g2000pro.googlegroups.com on 5/5/11
5:53 PM:
...
> This is well stated. I am not an apologist for MS. I'm not a denialist
> either, as if Windows is akin to genocide, rather than something that
> makes a computer more useful than a boat anchor. Success is in our
> hands and it has been since GPL v1. It is Gateway's stupidity, and
> ours for not educating them, that they don't support Linux. Even years
> after the DOJ trial, they don't support Linux. I just think many of
> you have been distracted by something irrelevant. Even today!
The OEMs have *tried* to support Linux - but they cannot make people want
it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
flatfish+++
> -Keith
Sorry but that one paragraph tells me you are a nut......
Carry on....
KeithCu
Stallman has written similar formulations.
KeithCu
> KeithCu stated in post
> 093c1cc5-5310-4db1-93f2-6cc321397...@h36g2000pro.googlegroups.com on 5/5/11
Dell has 103,000 employees. How many do you think work on Linux
software development versus Windows? How many in 2007 before they made
that "big" announcement? Dell should not be be waiting for Ubuntu.
They know how to make Linux run well on their hardware, can support
customers with problems, etc. Linux is better for Dell's support
business because Linux is more flexible.
I really think if you talk to people at many companies today, you will
find they don't "get" free software / Linux. If they did, they'd
contribute more. Or they think they are but don't realize they aren't.
It is one of those choices.
-Keith
flatfish+++
And you think he is playing with a full deck?
Sheeesh......
DFS
> On Thu, 5 May 2011 20:01:04 -0700 (PDT), KeithCu wrote:
>> Stallman has written similar formulations.
>
> And you think he is playing with a full deck?
> Sheeesh......
Well, he sure plays with a full belly...
DFS
> I really think if you talk to people at many companies today, you will
> find they don't "get" free software / Linux. If they did, they'd
> contribute more.
Most people don't give a shit about operating systems, beyond "As long
as it's Windows. I know Windows. It runs all my work and home
software, and games, and music."
KeithCu
I'm talking about tech companies: Dell, IBM, etc.
DFS
Regardless who they work for, most people just don't care about
operating systems. They have jobs and families to worry about.
Open source development and funding and politics is a topic almost
totally restricted to computer geeks.
KeithCu
Part of the reason for Microsoft's success is the incompetence of
companies like Dell and IBM, especially their leadership. There is
plenty of "anger" to spread around.
DFS
As if a nincompoop like you is worthy to judge supremely successful
business organizations such as Dell or IBM as "incompetent". It's
laughable.
Did you get fired from Microsoft? Tell the truth.
> There is plenty of "anger" to spread around.
True, the untested Linux hobby-crapware can make you angry.
RonB
What it really comes down to is that Microsoft became the /de facto/ OS
standard because IBM chose Microsoft's DOS for their PCs. When Windows
finally took off in the 90s, Microsoft froze out their application-making
competitors by not releasing their OS information until *after* they had
their new products ready. Not a hell of a lot of innovation, just pure
dumb luck, monopolistic polices, thuggery, litigation and a large sales
force. And let's not forget FUD.
--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.6 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
Homer
>>
>> Microsoft isn't a software company, it's an asset harvester that
>> sabotages, plunders and assassinates its way to "success". The
>> "product" is irrelevant to them, beyond the fact it's one they
>> managed to monopolise. They could be insurance salesmen for all the
>> difference it makes. It's all just about easy money by any means
>> possible, legal or otherwise.
>
> That is hysteria. The most immoral thing Microsoft does is not support
> free software. Everything else is irrelevant by comparison.
You misunderstand. I don't want Microsoft's "support", I just want them
to stay out of the way. It isn't for them to "support" Free Software
anyway. I've seen Microsoft's attempt to "support" Free Software, and it
ain't pretty. Apart from anything else, it's undoubtedly riddled with
patent traps. No, I don't want Microsoft's "support", thanks, I just
want them to stop racketeering. That would be the best support they
could offer by far.
If Microsoft truly have products that people "demand", then they
shouldn't need to sabotage others businesses with trivial patent
trolling, exclusion "deals", and their innumerable other dirty dealings.
IMO the law should require that retailers unbundle Windows from their
hardware, and only offer it as an option /if/ the customer explicitly
asks for it, whilst also offering at least one other option from a
competing OS vendor, and no OS at all, across their /entire/ range of
PCs. /That/ would be fair dealing, and it would in no way diminish the
customer's experience, since those who genuinely /wanted/ Windows would
still be able to get it.
Dell is not Microsoft. HP is not Microsoft. It's ridiculous and frankly
corrupt that their products should be inextricably tied to Microsoft,
especially as this is a near-universal situation, with almost no
alternative choices. If there were a hundred OEMs selling a hundred
different vendors' operating systems on their hardware, that would be a
different situation entirely, but for the whole world to be obligated to
just one US company is clearly unacceptable.
I don't pretend that would miraculously shoot GNU/Linux's market share
to 90%, but I can guarantee it'd be higher than the current estimated
<1%. And anyway, personally I don't give a damn about "market share",
I'm only concerned about being able to choose /any/ PC and have the
option to not pay for Windows.
Of course, with Microsoft's predatory volume licensing penalties,
regulators would also need to make sure retailers weren't inadvertently
being punished by being forced to essentially pay for one copy of
Windows for every PC they sell, even though they could no longer force
customers to accept it, leaving them with unsold "licenses".
They'd also need to ensure customers weren't sneakily being charged for
Windows anyway on systems they'd requested without Windows. Frankly I
think the only way to deal with this murky situation (no doubt tied into
knots by Microsoft's equally murky and NDA-protected contracts), would
be to force Microsoft to only ever sell direct to the customer, rather
than charge OEMs and retailers.
They already have an e-commerce system and WGA authentication in place
anyway, so that should be trivial to implement. The OS could still be
installed by the OEM, just not paid for by the OEM, and not paid for at
all until (and unless) an /actual/ customer activated his copy.
Meanwhile, everyone else could buy PCs without having to accept or pay
for Windows (with or without their knowledge), and could install
whatever OS they wanted, assuming the OEM wasn't prepared to do it for
them.
Problem solved.
>>> and anger saps productive energy.
>>
>> On the contrary, it only makes me more determined.
>
> To do the wrong things.
In your opinion.
And since your opinions apparently only concern technical matters, and
mine only concern ethical matters, I don't really see how you can even
have an opinion on whether or not my motives and actions are "wrong".
KeithCu
> On 5/5/2011 3:37 AM, KeithCu wrote:
>
> > On May 3, 1:10 am, Homer<use...@slated.org> wrote:
> >> The more I read this, the more I'm convinced it's just a pro-Microsoft /
> >> libertarian propaganda peice. Take this extremely obvious example from
> >> the 24-page "Afterword" section:
>
> > Calling my book pro-Microsoft is crazy talk.
>
> That's just [H]ypocrite being [H]ypocrite: miserable and insane.
>
> > But
> > Microsoft's success didn't come from that at all. It came from the
> > programmers. If you had worked in the company you'd see it very
> > differently.
>
> nah... it came from their lies, theft, fraud, extortion, blackmail, FUD,
> illegal monopolizing, and racketeering...
>
> > The trial was a distraction for Microsoft, but seems a greater
> > distraction for the outside community. Linux wins, not by changing
> > anything inside Microsoft, or getting upset about their behavior, but
> > by improving itself.
> > Wikipedia took over very quickly.
>
> Yes. That's because it's online and easy to search and contribute, and
> it's free (note: I donated $20 to wiki foundation). On the other hand,
> switching to Linux is a pain for most people.
>
> By the way, Linux will NEVER supplant Windows. You might as well quit
> daydreaming about that non-event ever occurring.
Cuba is actually switching over this year. I've emailed students who
took their CDs and go from computer to computer in their university,
etc. They quit talking about it and just did it.
It does seem hopeless sometimes. That is part of the way people get
defeated. Microsoft knows that the longer they hold out, the longer
they hold out. They've got their plans and will do the same, and
better, until they are forced to change. I agree that proprietary
software is evil. But it is not the most evil thing, and Microsoft is
not the only proprietary company.
I don't daydream about any of it. I only try to keep a list. I don't
consider it exhaustive, fully correct, perfectly stated, etc. It is a
movement and everyone brings their own perspective.
>
> > I think Linux has people with a victim mentality.
>
> How right you are (for a change).
We mostly discuss the things we disagree on.
>
> Many of the whiny Linux victims landed here in cola, drooling year after
> year about Microsoft holding Linux and computing back.
That is a mistake.
>
> Of course, by day most of them use Windows to make a living, and refuse
> to find Linux jobs.
I recommend such people giving a copy of the current or next version
of my book to their boss ;-)
-Keith
KeithCu
> On 5/5/2011 11:44 PM, KeithCu wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 8:37 pm, DFS<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/5/2011 11:23 PM, KeithCu wrote:
>
> >>> On May 5, 8:16 pm, DFS<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 5/5/2011 11:10 PM, KeithCu wrote:
>
> >>>>> I really think if you talk to people at many companies today, you will
> >>>>> find they don't "get" free software / Linux. If they did, they'd
> >>>>> contribute more.
>
> >>>> Most people don't give a shit about operating systems, beyond "As long
> >>>> as it's Windows. I know Windows. It runs all my work and home
> >>>> software, and games, and music."
>
> >>> I'm talking about tech companies: Dell, IBM, etc.
>
> >> Regardless who they work for, most people just don't care about
> >> operating systems. They have jobs and families to worry about.
>
> >> Open source development and funding and politics is a topic almost
> >> totally restricted to computer geeks.
>
> > Part of the reason for Microsoft's success is the incompetence of
> > companies like Dell and IBM, especially their leadership.
>
> As if a nincompoop like you is worthy to judge supremely successful
> business organizations such as Dell or IBM as "incompetent". It's
> laughable.
I am talking about with respect to free software versus Microsoft.
That is the point of this email alias. Hows this? The statement: "Dell
and IBM support Linux competently" is false.
>
> Did you get fired from Microsoft? Tell the truth.
I listed all the reasons I left in the book. People don't get fired
after 11 years unless they quit working. I was getting my work done on
time. I made sure there were always people with more bugs than me. I
left because I was bored.
>
> > There is plenty of "anger" to spread around.
>
> True, the untested Linux hobby-crapware can make you angry.
Yes, every codebase needs more developers.
Snit
22970dab-8f7e-4207...@s16g2000prf.googlegroups.com on 5/5/11
8:10 PM:
>>> This is well stated. I am not an apologist for MS. I'm not a denialist
>>> either, as if Windows is akin to genocide, rather than something that
>>> makes a computer more useful than a boat anchor. Success is in our
>>> hands and it has been since GPL v1. It is Gateway's stupidity, and
>>> ours for not educating them, that they don't support Linux. Even years
>>> after the DOJ trial, they don't support Linux. I just think many of
>>> you have been distracted by something irrelevant. Even today!
>>
>> The OEMs have *tried* to support Linux - but they cannot make people want
>> it.
>
> Dell has 103,000 employees. How many do you think work on Linux
> software development versus Windows?
Likely a *lot* fewer than work for Windows development. Of course. Is this
a surprise to you?
> How many in 2007 before they made that "big" announcement? Dell should not be
> be waiting for Ubuntu. They know how to make Linux run well on their hardware,
> can support customers with problems, etc. Linux is better for Dell's support
> business because Linux is more flexible.
Better? What makes you think that? And why do you think greater
flexibility - in other words *more variables* lead to easier support? Is
there any example of this you can think of from any industry? None come to
mind off hand.
Dell does not support Linux to the level they support Windows because it
does not make economic sense for them to do so.
> I really think if you talk to people at many companies today, you will
> find they don't "get" free software / Linux. If they did, they'd
> contribute more. Or they think they are but don't realize they aren't.
> It is one of those choices.
Nobody has an obligation to see things your way about Linux. I really do
not know what point you are trying to make.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
KeithCu
>
> You misunderstand. I don't want Microsoft's "support", I just want them
> to stay out of the way. It isn't for them to "support" Free Software
> anyway. I've seen Microsoft's attempt to "support" Free Software, and it
> ain't pretty. Apart from anything else, it's undoubtedly riddled with
> patent traps. No, I don't want Microsoft's "support", thanks, I just
> want them to stop racketeering. That would be the best support they
> could offer by far.
Lawyers on all sides believe this has stopped. My point was that these
lies are not as immoral as not supporting free software.
>
> If Microsoft truly have products that people "demand", then they
> shouldn't need to sabotage others businesses with trivial patent
> trolling, exclusion "deals", and their innumerable other dirty dealings.
They don't know software patents are bad. They are like many other
companies and people.
>
> IMO the law should require that retailers unbundle Windows from their
> hardware, and only offer it as an option /if/ the customer explicitly
> asks for it, whilst also offering at least one other option from a
> competing OS vendor, and no OS at all, across their /entire/ range of
> PCs. /That/ would be fair dealing, and it would in no way diminish the
> customer's experience, since those who genuinely /wanted/ Windows would
> still be able to get it.
That is reasonable. Don't know why the current fights are over the web
browser. There are many ways to accomplish your goal including
convincing Dell to ask for this arrangement. Dell probably argues
mostly over price and other random stuff.
>
> Dell is not Microsoft. HP is not Microsoft. It's ridiculous and frankly
> corrupt that their products should be inextricably tied to Microsoft,
> especially as this is a near-universal situation, with almost no
> alternative choices. If there were a hundred OEMs selling a hundred
> different vendors' operating systems on their hardware, that would be a
> different situation entirely, but for the whole world to be obligated to
> just one US company is clearly unacceptable.
Yes, Dell and HP need to quit thinking they are handcuffed to
Microsoft. But their silly ideas are not Microsoft's fault.
>
> I don't pretend that would miraculously shoot GNU/Linux's market share
> to 90%, but I can guarantee it'd be higher than the current estimated
> <1%. And anyway, personally I don't give a damn about "market share",
> I'm only concerned about being able to choose /any/ PC and have the
> option to not pay for Windows.
>
> Of course, with Microsoft's predatory volume licensing penalties,
> regulators would also need to make sure retailers weren't inadvertently
> being punished by being forced to essentially pay for one copy of
> Windows for every PC they sell, even though they could no longer force
> customers to accept it, leaving them with unsold "licenses".
That was a part of the consent decree.
>
> They'd also need to ensure customers weren't sneakily being charged for
> Windows anyway on systems they'd requested without Windows. Frankly I
> think the only way to deal with this murky situation (no doubt tied into
> knots by Microsoft's equally murky and NDA-protected contracts), would
> be to force Microsoft to only ever sell direct to the customer, rather
> than charge OEMs and retailers.
>
> They already have an e-commerce system and WGA authentication in place
> anyway, so that should be trivial to implement. The OS could still be
> installed by the OEM, just not paid for by the OEM, and not paid for at
> all until (and unless) an /actual/ customer activated his copy.
Clever idea. You could go lobby governments, companies, etc. to
implement that. I may put that idea in the future version.
>
> Meanwhile, everyone else could buy PCs without having to accept or pay
> for Windows (with or without their knowledge), and could install
> whatever OS they wanted, assuming the OEM wasn't prepared to do it for
> them.
>
> Problem solved.
It doesn't make Linux better.
>
> >>> and anger saps productive energy.
>
> >> On the contrary, it only makes me more determined.
>
> > To do the wrong things.
>
> In your opinion.
>
> And since your opinions apparently only concern technical matters, and
> mine only concern ethical matters, I don't really see how you can even
> have an opinion on whether or not my motives and actions are "wrong".
If you want to focus on ethics, that is great. I am not an amoral
person and I respect that. I only touch on it, and my focus is on
having people quit thinking government is the means to implement their
personal ideas. We mostly need to remove the bad laws (corn-based
ethanol, 100K pages of tax code, government run-education), not make
government more intrusive.
I meant that people who argue with the ref the whole game usually end
up losing. Also, there is the matter of talking to the right ref. COLA
people do not have power to make changes.
-Keith
KeithCu
> 8:10 PM:
>
> >>> This is well stated. I am not an apologist for MS. I'm not a denialist
> >>> either, as if Windows is akin to genocide, rather than something that
> >>> makes a computer more useful than a boat anchor. Success is in our
> >>> hands and it has been since GPL v1. It is Gateway's stupidity, and
> >>> ours for not educating them, that they don't support Linux. Even years
> >>> after the DOJ trial, they don't support Linux. I just think many of
> >>> you have been distracted by something irrelevant. Even today!
>
> >> The OEMs have *tried* to support Linux - but they cannot make people want
> >> it.
>
> > Dell has 103,000 employees. How many do you think work on Linux
> > software development versus Windows?
>
> Likely a *lot* fewer than work for Windows development. Of course. Is this
> a surprise to you?
I am just pointing out that Dell doesn't support Linux because they
don't understand it or they think they do but they aren't investing
enough in it. The problem is Dell's allocation of resources, not
Microsoft's OEM licensing department which makes its customer do
stupid things
>
> > How many in 2007 before they made that "big" announcement? Dell should not be
> > be waiting for Ubuntu. They know how to make Linux run well on their hardware,
> > can support customers with problems, etc. Linux is better for Dell's support
> > business because Linux is more flexible.
>
> Better? What makes you think that? And why do you think greater
> flexibility - in other words *more variables* lead to easier support? Is
> there any example of this you can think of from any industry? None come to
> mind off hand.
HP and others can tell you such reasons. Consider a way for a Dell
employee to connect to your Mom's computer to help her with something.
Or for your computer to connect to Dell. They can build all kinds of
supportability into Linux as opposed to on top of Windows. Dell can't
change Windows Update, so they have to write their own, etc.
>
> Dell does not support Linux to the level they support Windows because it
> does not make economic sense for them to do so.
Dell has given tons of money to Microsoft, directly or indirectly by
hiring Windows programmers. Linux has always been cheaper for them.
And it creates new ways for them to make money. They only think it
doesn't make economic sense -- or they already think it does make
sense and they believe they are investing in it. Maybe they didn't
notice how it's gone 10x in marketshare in the last few years. These
things change the situation but people don't notice.
>
> > I really think if you talk to people at many companies today, you will
> > find they don't "get" free software / Linux. If they did, they'd
> > contribute more. Or they think they are but don't realize they aren't.
> > It is one of those choices.
>
> Nobody has an obligation to see things your way about Linux. I really do
> not know what point you are trying to make.
I'm just trying to explain that the problem is Dell's ignorance, not
Microsoft's evil.
-Keith
Homer
> On May 5, 2:34 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> Are you just going to keep ignoring the reams of evidence (including
>> court evidence) that proves Microsoft's entire business strategy is
>> corrupt, and always has been, from way back when they inserted fake
>> error messages into Windows 3.1 to sabotage DR-DOS, right up to their
>> present-day patent racketeering?
>
> I'm not saying it didn't happen. What I'm saying is that it isn't why
> Microsoft succeeded.
Well merely the fact that it happened at all should attract rebuke and
legal proceedings, regardless of whether or not it resulted in
"success". Even Neelie Kroes, the former EU Commissioner for
Competition, stated that Microsoft's criminal history was justification
for member states to reject Microsoft's bids for government contracts
(sorry, I can't find the link, but I assure you that's true). Personally
I think if that's good enough for the government then it should be good
enough for the retail channel too.
If Windows had some technical merit then you might have a case, despite
its criminal dealings, but the fact is it really is a steaming pile, so
there's zero possibility it gained a 90% market share through actual
popularity. Even if its technical merit was on a par with other systems,
that wouldn't account for why is has 90% of the market. Clearly
something is rotten in Redmond.
Microsoft "succeeded" because it entered a virgin market then locked it
down with exclusion contracts, thus raising the barrier to enter that
market to an near-impenetrable level. Now it has a "channel" that's
utterly loyal to them for fear of financial penalties, where those in
that channel must make a certain level of commitment in order to at
least match the same discounts (and thus prices and margins) enjoyed by
their competitors, or face bankruptcy through customers going to the
cheaper "partner". In effect this means that every PC must be bundled
with Windows, irrespective of what any customer actually wants.
That's why no OEM or retailer ever bothers asking the question "what OS
do you want?", because no matter what the answer the result /must/
always be Windows, or the OEM/retailer loses money on unsold licenses.
This is also why they're so reluctant to issue "Windows tax refunds",
for example. The /OEM/ takes the hit, not Microsoft. But why should the
OEM be punished because the customer doesn't want Microsoft's products?
Obviously that's not a fair system, to either the OEM/retailer or the
customer.
Indeed the only time (that I'm aware of) that any major OEM has ever
asked its customers what OS they wanted, was when Dell launched its
IdeaStorm in a desperate measure to recover from lost "revenue" in the
form of Intel's bribery, which lasted six years and accounted for 76% of
Dell's operating capital at one point. Dell asked, generally, for
customers to tell them what they wanted, and the answer was "Linux" - by
far the biggest vote on the site. This left Dell in a bit of a
predicament (as explained above). Their solution was to go through the
motions of appearing to offer GNU/Linux, but in reality made the offer
as obfuscated and unattractive as possible, so as to not enrage
Microsoft and therefore not lose volume discounts and money on unsold
Windows licenses.
This wouldn't happen if Microsoft only sold direct the end-user instead
of the OEM/retailer, and there's really no morally defensible reason for
them selling volume licenses in this predatory manner, especially as the
production cost of a "license" is zero. It's clearly a very literal
conspiracy in restraint of trade, and it should be stopped by legal
intervention.
> The BMW salesman might tell you a lie, and he should not, especially
> if he is the only car-maker in town, but you probably would have
> bought the car anyway.
But he's not the only car maker in town. In fact there's no other
industry in the world that has the sort of problem the software industry
has with Microsoft.
Homer
> On May 5, 6:11 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that KeithCu spake thusly:
> Gateway and Dell don't support Linux because they accept the premise
> of Microsoft and Google and others that proprietary software is
> overall superior.
That's about as believable as the "Dell Recommends Windows" advert
plastered all over its Website, which was exposed as a /sponsored/
marketing campaign known as the "Local Original Equipment Manufacturer
(OEM) Incentives Programme", when a letter of solicitation was leaked to
the Internet some time ago:
http://slated.org/double_blow_for_microsoft_uk
> It is about the "conventional wisdom" more than what you describe
> about Microsoft's behaviors, which are highly regulated today.
They're obviously not regulated enough.
> Today certainly it is not Microsoft's fault that Gateway is not a
> stronger supporter of Linux.
Of course it is. Who's volume licensing contract is it that makes it
financially untenable for Gateway to sell anything but Windows-bundled
systems?
> And it was always that case.
No, in fact it used to be much worse. Take the BeOS or Netscape
exclusion cases, for example, in which Microsoft threatened to revoke
OEMs licenses entirely.
> The way to get Gateway to support Linux is not to attack Microsoft
Yes it is, indirectly, since Microsoft is the root of the problem, and
nothing else can be achieved until that problem is solved. Legislating
against forced bundling won't necessary encourage Gateway to support
Linux, but it will at least present the opportunity ... an opportunity
that currently doesn't exist due to Microsoft's financial penalties.
>> Yes. Can Microsoft magically undo the past to repair the present?
>
> The much bigger problem today and before is that Gateway doesn't see
> Linux as hugely in their interest.
Well of course not, since they have Microsoft's rope hanging over their
necks.
> It is because they are following the same behavior they've always
> done.
Business and consumer habits only account for so much, and remember
those habits were only acquired due to a series of underhand moves by
Microsoft in the first place. There's nonetheless a sufficient number of
consumers who could be persuaded to choose GNU/Linux /if/ that option
were readily available. And of course the more it's used, the more
widely known and respected it becomes. But none of that will happen
until Microsoft's contractual hold on the channel is broken.
Other markets not dominated by Microsoft have in fact succeeded in
greatly spreading Linux adoption (e.g. smartphones), so the market has
already been proven.
>> Moreover, no retailer ever even askes its customers what OS they'd
>> like at the Point Of Sale, if any.
>
> They are afraid of Linux.
Yes, and we know why.
> Windows is so hard for users already
Computers in general are hard for archetypal consumers. GNU/Linux is not
harder, it's just "hard" in an entirely different way to Windows.
GNU/Linux requires a certain approach and a willingness to learn
paradigms different to Windows. OTOH Windows is much harder WRT to
dealing with things like security, viruses, inexplicable and seemingly
irreparable incompatibilities and errors (the inevitable consequence of
closed sources), broken Registry settings, the lack of a central
repository for software, and the "where do I start" problem of a virgin
OS with no apps out-of-the-box, compared to the "complete solution"
approach of most GNU/Linux distros. Given exposure to the GNU/Linux
paradigm, frankly I think most consumers would prefer it. I know I do.
> and then there's the Mac
Expensive and highly restrictive, both in terms of hardware upgrades and
Apple's overly-simplistic software. For most people the hardware price
alone makes it a non-starter.
> and they run out of interest. They don't understand it either.
It's simply entrenchment. The OEMs are coerced into supporting
Microsoft, and consumers are tied to Windows by force of habit induced
by a total lack of options presented at the POS.
> But it also needs to get better. The shoppers at CompUSA aren't going
> to make Linux any better.
I don't expect the sheeple to be any help. The only people who can
really help at this point is the government.
> There are many places to look for problems, beyond quotes from 2002.
How about Barnes and Noble's quotes from last week?
And don't dismiss the history so lightly. It's how we got here in the
first place, and continues to be responsible for our current
predicament, especially as Microsoft's "ancient history" behaviour has
never really changed at all.
Snit
3bf774b3-93f3-44c3...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com on 5/5/11
9:51 PM:
> On May 5, 9:19 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> KeithCu stated in post
>> 22970dab-8f7e-4207-85dc-4263ea083...@s16g2000prf.googlegroups.com on 5/5/11
>> 8:10 PM:
>>
>>>>> This is well stated. I am not an apologist for MS. I'm not a denialist
>>>>> either, as if Windows is akin to genocide, rather than something that
>>>>> makes a computer more useful than a boat anchor. Success is in our
>>>>> hands and it has been since GPL v1. It is Gateway's stupidity, and
>>>>> ours for not educating them, that they don't support Linux. Even years
>>>>> after the DOJ trial, they don't support Linux. I just think many of
>>>>> you have been distracted by something irrelevant. Even today!
>>
>>>> The OEMs have *tried* to support Linux - but they cannot make people want
>>>> it.
>>
>>> Dell has 103,000 employees. How many do you think work on Linux
>>> software development versus Windows?
>>
>> Likely a *lot* fewer than work for Windows development. Of course. Is this
>> a surprise to you?
>
> I am just pointing out that Dell doesn't support Linux because they
> don't understand it or they think they do but they aren't investing
> enough in it.
Or they do and see no benefit to investing more. It is not as though they
do not sell machines with Linux now.
> The problem is Dell's allocation of resources, not
> Microsoft's OEM licensing department which makes its customer do
> stupid things
What makes you think Dell has a problem with their allocation of resources
in this area?
>>> How many in 2007 before they made that "big" announcement? Dell should not
>>> be be waiting for Ubuntu. They know how to make Linux run well on their
>>> hardware, can support customers with problems, etc. Linux is better for
>>> Dell's support business because Linux is more flexible.
>>>
>> Better? What makes you think that? And why do you think greater flexibility
>> - in other words *more variables* lead to easier support? Is there any
>> example of this you can think of from any industry? None come to mind off
>> hand.
>>
> HP and others can tell you such reasons. Consider a way for a Dell employee to
> connect to your Mom's computer to help her with something. Or for your
> computer to connect to Dell. They can build all kinds of supportability into
> Linux as opposed to on top of Windows. Dell can't change Windows Update, so
> they have to write their own, etc.
They can and do write Windows programs. And on their Ubuntu machines
presumably they do not mess with the updating from Ubuntu.
>> Dell does not support Linux to the level they support Windows because it
>> does not make economic sense for them to do so.
>
> Dell has given tons of money to Microsoft, directly or indirectly by
> hiring Windows programmers.
What money have they *given*?
> Linux has always been cheaper for them.
To acquire as an OS, sure. So? That does not mean it is the choice that
would make them more money: there are many other considerations. They also
look at what sells, what support costs, etc.
> And it creates new ways for them to make money. They only think it
> doesn't make economic sense -- or they already think it does make
> sense and they believe they are investing in it. Maybe they didn't
> notice how it's gone 10x in marketshare in the last few years. These
> things change the situation but people don't notice.
You keep going on about the needing to see something. What? Please: get to
the point.
>>> I really think if you talk to people at many companies today, you will
>>> find they don't "get" free software / Linux. If they did, they'd
>>> contribute more. Or they think they are but don't realize they aren't.
>>> It is one of those choices.
>>
>> Nobody has an obligation to see things your way about Linux. I really do
>> not know what point you are trying to make.
>
> I'm just trying to explain that the problem is Dell's ignorance, not
> Microsoft's evil.
What makes you think Dell is ignorant about Linux. You go on and on saying
so but give no reason to think they are. You think they do not know they
can get Linux for free? And you did not answer about how more options for
them to support would somehow be cheaper... completely contrary to what is
likely the case. And about Dell giving money to MS. Giving. What?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
KeithCu
In return for licenses, billions.
>
> > Linux has always been cheaper for them.
>
> To acquire as an OS, sure. So? That does not mean it is the choice that
> would make them more money: there are many other considerations. They also
> look at what sells, what support costs, etc.
>
> > And it creates new ways for them to make money. They only think it
> > doesn't make economic sense -- or they already think it does make
> > sense and they believe they are investing in it. Maybe they didn't
> > notice how it's gone 10x in marketshare in the last few years. These
> > things change the situation but people don't notice.
>
> You keep going on about the needing to see something. What? Please: get to
> the point.
>
> >>> I really think if you talk to people at many companies today, you will
> >>> find they don't "get" free software / Linux. If they did, they'd
> >>> contribute more. Or they think they are but don't realize they aren't.
> >>> It is one of those choices.
>
> >> Nobody has an obligation to see things your way about Linux. I really do
> >> not know what point you are trying to make.
>
> > I'm just trying to explain that the problem is Dell's ignorance, not
> > Microsoft's evil.
>
> What makes you think Dell is ignorant about Linux. You go on and on saying
> so but give no reason to think they are. You think they do not know they
> can get Linux for free? And you did not answer about how more options for
> them to support would somehow be cheaper... completely contrary to what is
> likely the case. And about Dell giving money to MS. Giving. What?
Dell is ignorant on many things about Linux. A basic standard is
having every driver free and in the Linux kernel before it ships. If
they do not implement that, it tells what they think about Linux.
Intel invests 1% of Linux vs Windows. You can work backwards from
someone's actions.
-Keith
Snit
55e96e9d-cd59-4259...@r27g2000prr.googlegroups.com on 5/6/11
12:24 AM:
...
>>>> Dell does not support Linux to the level they support Windows because it
>>>> does not make economic sense for them to do so.
>>
>>> Dell has given tons of money to Microsoft, directly or indirectly by
>>> hiring Windows programmers.
>>
>> What money have they *given*?
>
> In return for licenses, billions.
They *bought* stuff. That is not giving money away!
...
>>> I'm just trying to explain that the problem is Dell's ignorance, not
>>> Microsoft's evil.
>>
>> What makes you think Dell is ignorant about Linux. You go on and on saying
>> so but give no reason to think they are. You think they do not know they
>> can get Linux for free? And you did not answer about how more options for
>> them to support would somehow be cheaper... completely contrary to what is
>> likely the case. And about Dell giving money to MS. Giving. What?
>
> Dell is ignorant on many things about Linux.
So you keep saying - without showing a shred of evidence.
> A basic standard is having every driver free and in the Linux kernel before it
> ships. If they do not implement that, it tells what they think about Linux.
Why move goal posts from what you say they know about (or do not) to what
they feel about it?
> Intel invests 1% of Linux vs Windows. You can work backwards from
> someone's actions.
For crying out loud... you really have no point, do you? You are just
bitter about Intel (it was Dell, not it is Intel... another amazing goal
post move).
Nobody owes the Linux community anything. Not Dell. Not Intel.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chris Ahlstrom
> On May 5, 10:40?am, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstr...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>> KeithCu wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>> > Note all those companies wrote proprietary software, so that was also
>> > part of their downfall. They made other mistakes besides. I could talk
>> > to you about many mistakes by Borland as I worked on a competing
>> > product.
>>
>> Like, er, Visual C++. How's old Jim McCarthy anyway? I'll bet he still
>> gets a glow from thinking about how you guys *killed* Borland.
>
> Borland was trying to kill MS. That is what programmers did. They
> added features in hopes of converting people.
You guys have a sick view of competition.
>> > I believe you could have gotten rid of all the dirty dealings and it
>> > wouldn't have changed anything. The consent decree went into effect
>> > many years ago and it hasn't changed anything..
>>
>> Why would it? ?All the competitors were already dead.
>
> The competitors in the DOJ trial are still around: Apple, Netscape /
> Mozilla, Sun / Oracle, etc. The reason things haven't changed is
> because people want Windows on Gateway.
Most people don't care. Microsoft? They care, to a fault.
Microsoft wants Windows on Gateway. Gateway? They need to make
money, and, like all consumer computer vendors, they *must*
augment their very slim profit margins with incentives from Microsoft and
third parties. You might call that the ecosystem, but there have been
attempts to diversify that ecosystem. And
> Why doesn't Gateway support Linux? Is that still Microsoft's fault?
The whole Windows monopoly is *obviously* Microsoft's fault.
That entrenchment, and Microsoft's rigorous maintenance of it ("under NO
circumstances lose to Linux"), is what keeps other operating systems
(e.g. BeOS) off of the machines of the hardware vendors.
Given a fresh market, not dominated by Microsoft (e.g. smartphones and
tablets), and Microsoft becomes just another player... if you ignore
their growing role as a patent troll.
>> Only Apple and "open source" are making any headway against MS these days.
>
> And Apple uses a lot of free software.
Well "Duh".
If it weren't for Free software, we'd have no alternative at all to whatever
quality goods Microsoft purveyed. (Think Internet Explorer before Mozilla
began attracting users in serious numbers. Think Windows before Apple and
Linux started attracting users.)
--
<zpx> it's amazing how "not-broken" debian is compared to slack and rh
Chris Ahlstrom
> Gateway and Dell don't support Linux because they accept the premise
> of Microsoft and Google and others that proprietary software is
> overall superior. It is about the "conventional wisdom" more than what
> you describe about Microsoft's behaviors, which are highly regulated
> today.
The kimono is open.
--
f u cn rd ths, u r prbbly a lsy spllr.
Chris Ahlstrom
> On May 5, 12:55?pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>
>> By the way, Linux will NEVER supplant Windows.
Surely not. But who cares about that? I'm satisfied that
Linux is putting a small dent in Windows on consumer computers,
and much larger dents on Windows in high-performance computers, smartphones,
and the iPad-style tablets.
Choice is good.
The primary believes of the winner-take-all philosophy seem actually to be
Microsoft and its fans.
> Cuba is actually switching over this year. I've emailed students who
> took their CDs and go from computer to computer in their university,
> etc. They quit talking about it and just did it.
>
> It does seem hopeless sometimes. That is part of the way people get
> defeated. Microsoft knows that the longer they hold out, the longer
> they hold out. They've got their plans and will do the same, and
> better, until they are forced to change. I agree that proprietary
> software is evil. But it is not the most evil thing, and Microsoft is
> not the only proprietary company.
--
* Phaedrus wishes he could get a machine that consists of Sparc IO,
Alpha Processors and sleek design of an SGI
<pp> And intel prices
-- Seen on #Linux
Chris Ahlstrom
> On May 5, 10:40?am, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstr...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>> KeithCu wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>> > Note all those companies wrote proprietary software, so that was also
>> > part of their downfall. They made other mistakes besides. I could talk
>> > to you about many mistakes by Borland as I worked on a competing
>> > product.
>>
>> Like, er, Visual C++. How's old Jim McCarthy anyway? I'll bet he still
>> gets a glow from thinking about how you guys *killed* Borland.
>
> Borland was trying to kill MS. That is what programmers did. They
> added features in hopes of converting people.
You guys have a sick view of competition.
>> > I believe you could have gotten rid of all the dirty dealings and it
>> > wouldn't have changed anything. The consent decree went into effect
>> > many years ago and it hasn't changed anything..
>>
>> Why would it? ?All the competitors were already dead.
>
> The competitors in the DOJ trial are still around: Apple, Netscape /
> Mozilla, Sun / Oracle, etc. The reason things haven't changed is
> because people want Windows on Gateway.
Most people don't care. Microsoft? They care, to a fault.
Microsoft wants Windows on Gateway. Gateway? They need to make
money, and, like all consumer computer vendors, they *must*
augment their very slim profit margins with incentives from Microsoft and
third parties. You might call that the ecosystem, but there have been
attempts to diversify that ecosystem. And Microsoft moves in to
"disincentify" that diversification.
> Why doesn't Gateway support Linux? Is that still Microsoft's fault?
The whole Windows monopoly is *obviously* Microsoft's fault.
That entrenchment, and Microsoft's rigorous maintenance of it ("under NO
circumstances lose to Linux"), is what keeps other operating systems
(e.g. BeOS) off of the machines of the hardware vendors.
Given a fresh market, not dominated by Microsoft (e.g. smartphones and
tablets), and Microsoft becomes just another player... if you ignore
their growing role as a patent troll.
>> Only Apple and "open source" are making any headway against MS these days.
>
> And Apple uses a lot of free software.
Well "Duh".
If it weren't for Free software, we'd have no alternative at all to whatever
quality goods Microsoft purveyed. (Think Internet Explorer before Mozilla
began attracting users in serious numbers. Think Windows before Apple and
Linux started attracting users.)
--
"Under NO circumstances lose against Linux," Mr. Ayala wrote.
-- http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/technology/15SOFT.html
chrisv
>This is well stated.
In the opinion of an idiotic Micro$oft apologist who admits his
amorality and who can't think his way out of a wet paper bag.
> I am not an apologist for MS.
Actually, you are. And a stupid troll, as well.
The fact Apple hung-in there as a high-end/niche-market alternative is
not an argument in you idiot's favor. (Remember, we're talking about
the desktop.) They had the name recognition and the critical mass so
as not to be an "obscure, risky" choice. They were their own OEM.
They didn't threaten M$ profit margins in the low and middle (the vast
majority) of the market.
chrisv
> KeithCu wrote:
>>
>> Gateway and Dell don't support Linux because they accept the premise
>> of Microsoft and Google and others that proprietary software is
>> overall superior.
LOL Oh, is that why, "Keith"?
It's not that Micro$oft, through a variety of devices and
"incentives", have made it "good business" for OEM's to, essentially,
offer only M$ operating systems?
What nonsense.
>> It is about the "conventional wisdom" more than what
>> you describe about Microsoft's behaviors, which are highly regulated
>> today.
>
>The kimono is open.
We're being trolled, no doubt.
chrisv
> KeithCu wrote:
>>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>> KeithCu wrote:
>>>
>>> > Note all those companies wrote proprietary software, so that was also
>>> > part of their downfall. They made other mistakes besides. I could talk
>>> > to you about many mistakes by Borland as I worked on a competing
>>> > product.
>>>
>>> Like, er, Visual C++. How's old Jim McCarthy anyway? I'll bet he still
>>> gets a glow from thinking about how you guys *killed* Borland.
>>
>> Borland was trying to kill MS. That is what programmers did. They
>> added features in hopes of converting people.
>
>You guys have a sick view of competition.
Sick indeed.
The natural result of producing a "superior" or "preferred" product is
not "killing" the competition. Market share will increase, but
there's always going to be different tastes, budgets, brand loyalties,
etc, that, if nothing else, allow the "losing" compeitors time to
address their issues and try again.
Sure, sometimes a company will leave a market. But, generally, other
companies will join. It's simply *not* possible for one company to
optimally serve an entire market. In no healthy market *in the world*
do we see one company supplying 90% of the market. It's simply *not*
sustainable, under healthy market conditions.
Catch the Wave
documented liar "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:4ur7s69u6anq6sd0h...@4ax.com...
snip. more DOCUMENTED lies from the fscking asshole.
"chrisv" is a liar. "chrisv" is a piece of shit.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 05 May 2011 21:36:38 -0700, KeithCu wrote:
>> Dell is not Microsoft. HP is not Microsoft. It's ridiculous and frankly
>> corrupt that their products should be inextricably tied to Microsoft,
>> especially as this is a near-universal situation, with almost no
>> alternative choices. If there were a hundred OEMs selling a hundred
>> different vendors' operating systems on their hardware, that would be a
>> different situation entirely, but for the whole world to be obligated
>> to just one US company is clearly unacceptable.
>
> Yes, Dell and HP need to quit thinking they are handcuffed to Microsoft.
> But their silly ideas are not Microsoft's fault.
The "silly idea" here being that they're tied to MS, and specifically
Windows?
Funny, I seem to recall reading about MS's licensing deals with vendors,
something to the effect of "You can have it cheap, if you don't sell
anything else, or we can gouge you so bad you'll bleed to death."
Yes, how silly of HP or Dell to consider themselves tied to an OS when MS
has effectively put a gun to their heads over the matter.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 05 May 2011 09:36:43 -0700, KeithCu wrote:
> On May 5, 8:55 am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, the path of destruction that M$ has left in its wake (e.g.
>> Borland, Quarterdeck, Digital Research, Netscape) is all due to the
>> superior quality and value of M$ products, and *nothing*to do with
>> dirty-dealing. They are simply smarter and harder-working than
>> *everyone* else, you know.
>
> Dirty dealing had little to do with it.
Do various suits about MS's use of undocumented APIs to unfair advantage
ring any bells? No? How about the whole DR-DOS "unsupported
configuration" abomination? No? How about building IE into Windows as
"part of the OS", rather than just as a browser, to ensure first that
everyone had a browser, and second, you can't even get rid of it if you
want to? Something about a lawsuit and Netscape comes to mind there.
And let us not forget the origins of MS-DOS, the very thing which really
launched the MS empire - and was based on what might be politely
described as stupendously underhanded chicanery.
Do we recall MS getting into bed with Stac - makers of Stacker - because
MS wanted to bundled compression into DOS? Do we also recall that once
they had the mechanics of it, they kicked Stac to the curb, effectively
stealing the technology?
Do we not recall the whole OS/2 fiasco, in which MS - supposedly working
with IBM to produce a viable new OS - instead produced an abomination
which required a near-complete rewrite in order to be viable?
Do we not recall MS's campaigns of FUD - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt -
over a number of competing products, campaigns having little if any
factual basis in any actual shortcomings of said products?
MS's entire history is one of dirty dealing. It's what they built their
empire on. To claim otherwise is to suggest you're either an MS shill,
or so woefully ignorant of the reality of the situation you have no basis
forming any opinion on the matter.
flatfish+++
> [snips]
>
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 09:36:43 -0700, KeithCu wrote:
>
>> On May 5, 8:55 am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, the path of destruction that M$ has left in its wake (e.g.
>>> Borland, Quarterdeck, Digital Research, Netscape) is all due to the
>>> superior quality and value of M$ products, and *nothing*to do with
>>> dirty-dealing. They are simply smarter and harder-working than
>>> *everyone* else, you know.
>>
>> Dirty dealing had little to do with it.
>
> Do various suits about MS's use of undocumented APIs to unfair advantage
> ring any bells? No?
And what do you think IBM does?
Do you think Ford provides all the specs of their machined parts so the
after market can reproduce clones?
> How about the whole DR-DOS "unsupported
> configuration" abomination? No?
True.
> How about building IE into Windows as
> "part of the OS", rather than just as a browser, to ensure first that
> everyone had a browser, and second, you can't even get rid of it if you
> want to?
So what?
The user could always use another browser.
Only screwballs like Linturds and the anti American EU are interested in
doing that.
You guys cry when Windows doesn't include some feature Linux has and
then you cry when it includes IE or a back up program or a disk
defragger etc.
> Something about a lawsuit and Netscape comes to mind there.
Sure, Netscape had a shit product back then.
Nobody wanted it after they used IE.
> And let us not forget the origins of MS-DOS, the very thing which really
> launched the MS empire - and was based on what might be politely
> described as stupendously underhanded chicanery.
I suggest you do a little reading on Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, the
Kennedy family etc......
They didn't get where they are by being nice....
> Do we recall MS getting into bed with Stac - makers of Stacker - because
> MS wanted to bundled compression into DOS? Do we also recall that once
> they had the mechanics of it, they kicked Stac to the curb, effectively
> stealing the technology?
Nasty for sure.
They got caught.
But not the same as buying a company for it's technology.
> Do we not recall the whole OS/2 fiasco, in which MS - supposedly working
> with IBM to produce a viable new OS - instead produced an abomination
> which required a near-complete rewrite in order to be viable?
IBM were fools.
Microsoft were shrewd.
IBM could have easily done the same thing.
They didn't.
> Do we not recall MS's campaigns of FUD - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt -
> over a number of competing products, campaigns having little if any
> factual basis in any actual shortcomings of said products?
And Linux loving IBM invented the term.
> MS's entire history is one of dirty dealing. It's what they built their
> empire on. To claim otherwise is to suggest you're either an MS shill,
> or so woefully ignorant of the reality of the situation you have no basis
> forming any opinion on the matter.
They have some skeletons.
Now find a major company that doesn't?
You can't and that includes the Catholic Church for goodness sakes.
--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html
DFS
> Verily I say unto thee, that KeithCu spake thusly:
>> The BMW salesman might tell you a lie, and he should not, especially
>> if he is the only car-maker in town, but you probably would have
>> bought the car anyway.
>
> But he's not the only car maker in town.
Nor is MS the only OS maker in town. There are many proprietary and
non-proprietary operating systems for PC hardware:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operating_systems
> In fact there's no other industry in the world that
> has the sort of problem the software industry has
> with Microsoft.
It's only a problem to you and a few other disgruntled MS-haters. By
and large MS is very much admired, and for proof you can see the world
running to Redmond every year throwing cash at them to the tune of $60
billion.
chrisv
>How about building IE into Windows as
>"part of the OS", rather than just as a browser, to ensure first that
>everyone had a browser, and second, you can't even get rid of it if you
>want to?
... and also *banning* the OEM's from installing an alternate browser.
That's called leveraging your power in one market to gain an unfair
advantage in another market.
In a balanced market, it's fair play. When you *dominate* a market,
it becomes unfair.
The rules are different for monopolies, and rightly so.
Catch the Wave
stupid asshole "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:uia8s6dtjnkuim9sd...@4ax.com...
fsck off and quit lying you stupid asshole. sheeesh - how stupid are you.
amicus_curious
"KeithCu" <kei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e10c200d-772c-4be2...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>
> I am talking about with respect to free software versus Microsoft.
> That is the point of this email alias. Hows this? The statement: "Dell
> and IBM support Linux competently" is false.
>
I don't think that either is true in any absolute sense. IBM certainly has
used Linux to its advantage to crack the hold that Sun once had on the Unix
Workstation and Unix Server businesses. They used Linux on their hardware
to wreck the price umbrella that Sun used to fuel their erstwhile success.
IBM lost their taste for PCs with the death of OS/2 and the ultimate triumph
of Compaq and Dell over the IBM brand. IBM, of course, also has a valuable
trade in AIX servers to shield from overall Linux adoption. Even so, the
IBM effort is the singular event that dignified Linux in commerce. No one
else could have done that.
Dell is in the PC business or, more exactly, in the Wintel PC business.
Periodically they test the water for Linux based computers and make a fair
effort to promote them. So far, it has resulted in their discontinuing the
efforts, presumably due to lack of interest from consumers who might buy
Dell products.
The same is true for the other major Wintel suppliers. Elsewhere you noted
that the reason why Linux is not more popular is the failure of the
advocates to educate the consumer in some form of acceptance of Linux as a
alternative to Windows. The conventional wisdom in business circles is that
such an effort is far too costly, at the scale that would have to be
applied, to ever offer a payback for the investment required. A major OEM
could presumably recover the money paid to Microsoft for Windows, but at the
end of the day they would not be selling any more units and the units being
sold would necessarily be offered at a reduced price to reflect the savings
in license costs. Nor would that be enough money to get the word out.
Microsoft has the power to punish by providing much more leveraged
promotions of its own, making the Linux advocacy even less efficient and
potentially rewarding their "loyal" OEMs with more lucrative co-marketing
agreements and simultaneously punishing deserters by removing those funds.
Apple, of course, is often offered as a counter example, but remember that
Apple has a historic image of being a direct counterpart to Microsoft and
IBM in terms of the PC business. Apple once enjoyed several times the user
base of IBM/Microsoft and has declined to the state that it is today from
much more lofty heights. They have managed to turn these lemons in some
form of lemonade more recently, true, but no other company can leverage that
sort of public recognition into a self-managed OS supplier. Such is the
fate of mature product markets, which the PC business has been for more than
a decade now.
amicus_curious
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ipvrfh$b9c$1...@dont-email.me...
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 20:44:34 -0700, KeithCu wrote:
>
>> On May 5, 8:37 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2011 11:23 PM, KeithCu wrote:
>>>
>>> > On May 5, 8:16 pm, DFS<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>> >> On 5/5/2011 11:10 PM, KeithCu wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> I really think if you talk to people at many companies today, you
>>> >>> will find they don't "get" free software / Linux. If they did,
>>> >>> they'd contribute more.
>>>
>>> >> Most people don't give a shit about operating systems, beyond "As
>>> >> long as it's Windows. I know Windows. It runs all my work and home
>>> >> software, and games, and music."
>>>
>>> > I'm talking about tech companies: Dell, IBM, etc.
>>>
>>> Regardless who they work for, most people just don't care about
>>> operating systems. They have jobs and families to worry about.
>>>
>>> Open source development and funding and politics is a topic almost
>>> totally restricted to computer geeks.
>>
>> Part of the reason for Microsoft's success is the incompetence of
>> companies like Dell and IBM, especially their leadership. There is
>> plenty of "anger" to spread around.
>
> What it really comes down to is that Microsoft became the /de facto/ OS
> standard because IBM chose Microsoft's DOS for their PCs. When Windows
> finally took off in the 90s, Microsoft froze out their application-making
> competitors by not releasing their OS information until *after* they had
> their new products ready. Not a hell of a lot of innovation, just pure
> dumb luck, monopolistic polices, thuggery, litigation and a large sales
> force. And let's not forget FUD.
Bottom line: "We waz WHUPPED!" sez RonB.
Well what next?
DFS
> I am just pointing out that Dell doesn't support Linux because they
> don't understand it or they think they do but they aren't investing
> enough in it. The problem is Dell's allocation of resources
I always have to laugh when know-nothing Linux "advocates" sit in their
apartments and basements and try to tell MS and Dell and IBM how to run
their businesses.
The problem is NOT Dell's allocation of resources to Linux - the problem
is people don't buy Linux systems if Windows is available.
Were Dell to quit selling Windows and offer only Linux systems, I
believe they would be out of money and out of business in a few months.
99% of their customers would go to HP or Lenovo or Acer or Asus or
Apple or any one of a hundred other popular computer sellers.
Trying to force Linux on the desktop would, in short order, wipe out
many $billions of value across the world.
>>> How many in 2007 before they made that "big" announcement? Dell should not be
>>> be waiting for Ubuntu. They know how to make Linux run well on their hardware,
>>> can support customers with problems, etc. Linux is better for Dell's support
>>> business because Linux is more flexible.
Doesn't Linux' extreme flexibility make it much harder to create distros
and standard configurations and support plans?
And which Linux distro is Dell going to start with and customize?
> HP and others can tell you such reasons. Consider a way for a Dell
> employee to connect to your Mom's computer to help her with something.
They can do this with Windows already, for years.
> Or for your computer to connect to Dell. They can build all kinds of
> supportability into Linux as opposed to on top of Windows. Dell can't
> change Windows Update, so they have to write their own, etc.
So you think Dell should and would hire people to maintain their own
Dell Linux repos? You're out of your mind.
>> Dell does not support Linux to the level they support Windows because it
>> does not make economic sense for them to do so.
"advocates" don't have the common sense to understand that.
> Dell has given tons of money to Microsoft, directly or indirectly by
> hiring Windows programmers. Linux has always been cheaper for them.
> And it creates new ways for them to make money. They only think it
> doesn't make economic sense -- or they already think it does make
> sense and they believe they are investing in it.
Linux doesn't make economic sense for a retailer.
Try it yourself and see: build some Linux systems and try to sell them
on ebay and craigslist or thru a computer magazine or a store.
> Maybe they didn't notice how it's gone 10x
> in marketshare in the last few years.
Where's your evidence for this numbnut claim?
> These things change the situation but people don't notice.
uh huh... only a few disgruntled Linux users see and understand the
world of operating systems and software.
>>> I really think if you talk to people at many companies today, you will
>>> find they don't "get" free software / Linux. If they did, they'd
>>> contribute more. Or they think they are but don't realize they aren't.
>>> It is one of those choices.
>>
>> Nobody has an obligation to see things your way about Linux. I really do
>> not know what point you are trying to make.
Nor does KeithCu. His favorite comeback phrase begins with "I meant..."
as if we're supposed to read his mind.
> I'm just trying to explain that the problem is Dell's ignorance, not
> Microsoft's evil.
Dell is not ignorant, and MS is not evil.
DFS
> On May 5, 12:55 pm, DFS<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 5/5/2011 3:37 AM, KeithCu wrote:
>>
>>> On May 3, 1:10 am, Homer<use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>>> The more I read this, the more I'm convinced it's just a pro-Microsoft /
>>>> libertarian propaganda peice. Take this extremely obvious example from
>>>> the 24-page "Afterword" section:
>>
>>> Calling my book pro-Microsoft is crazy talk.
>>
>> That's just [H]ypocrite being [H]ypocrite: miserable and insane.
>>
>>> But
>>> Microsoft's success didn't come from that at all. It came from the
>>> programmers. If you had worked in the company you'd see it very
>>> differently.
>>
>> nah... it came from their lies, theft, fraud, extortion, blackmail, FUD,
>> illegal monopolizing, and racketeering...
In case you don't know me, the above was extreme sarcasm. MS is no
saint, of course, but virtually all the bullshit said about them here in
cola is false.
>>> The trial was a distraction for Microsoft, but seems a greater
>>> distraction for the outside community. Linux wins, not by changing
>>> anything inside Microsoft, or getting upset about their behavior, but
>>> by improving itself.
>>> Wikipedia took over very quickly.
>>
>> Yes. That's because it's online and easy to search and contribute, and
>> it's free (note: I donated $20 to wiki foundation). On the other hand,
>> switching to Linux is a pain for most people.
>>
>> By the way, Linux will NEVER supplant Windows. You might as well quit
>> daydreaming about that non-event ever occurring.
>
> Cuba is actually switching over this year.
uh huh...
May 2005:
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/05/05/19/1213245/Cuba-Switching-to-Linux
And then 4 years later: Cuba launches own Linux variant
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/02/11/us-cuba-software-idUSTRE51A77S20090211?rpc=64
And of course: "Héctor Rodríguez, dean of the School of Free Software at
UCI, 20 percent of Cuban computers already run on Linux-based software
as of February 2009."
http://www.imagesnewsletter.com/?p=4762
heh! As if 1 in 5 Cuban computers run that crapware.
And now here you come another 2 years later with the same drool.
It's beginning to sound a lot like Munich...
>> Of course, by day most of them use Windows to make a living, and refuse
>> to find Linux jobs.
>
> I recommend such people giving a copy of the current or next version
> of my book to their boss ;-)
Only if they're looking to get fired.
KeithCu
> KeithCu wrote:
> >This is well stated.
>
> In the opinion of an idiotic Micro$oft apologist who admits his
> amorality and who can't think his way out of a wet paper bag.
>
> > I am not an apologist for MS.
>
> Actually, you are. And a stupid troll, as well.
I don't apologize for Microsoft. I criticize them for totally
different things than many here. The book has many criticisms of
Microsoft, starting on the first page.
-Keith
KeithCu
You can think whatever you want, all I can say is that many people in
other companies besides Microsoft don't understand Linux yet. The
underlying problem is their ignorance which is not Microsoft's fault.
All the licensing issues, etc. were looked at many years ago. You guys
are living in a time warp.
-Keith
KeithCu
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > KeithCu wrote:
>
> >> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> >>> KeithCu wrote:
>
> >>> > Note all those companies wrote proprietary software, so that was also
> >>> > part of their downfall. They made other mistakes besides. I could talk
> >>> > to you about many mistakes by Borland as I worked on a competing
> >>> > product.
>
> >>> Like, er, Visual C++. How's old Jim McCarthy anyway? I'll bet he still
> >>> gets a glow from thinking about how you guys *killed* Borland.
>
> >> Borland was trying to kill MS. That is what programmers did. They
> >> added features in hopes of converting people.
>
> >You guys have a sick view of competition.
>
> Sick indeed.
>
Killing is not my words. Most MS employees came to work every day
adding features customers wanted, and features other products had.
KeithCu
I know all that history. My point is that it wasn't (very) relevant to
their success.
KeithCu
Yes, unfortunately no one could tell MS when they cross that
threshold.
Dominate is not so precise as murder.
The problem was the proprietary software more than the domination.
KeithCu
>
> May 2005:http://linux.slashdot.org/story/05/05/19/1213245/Cuba-Switching-to-Linux
>
>
> And of course: "Héctor Rodríguez, dean of the School of Free Software at
> UCI, 20 percent of Cuban computers already run on Linux-based software
> as of February 2009."http://www.imagesnewsletter.com/?p=4762
>
> heh! As if 1 in 5 Cuban computers run that crapware.
Things are different this time. They've gone from talking to doing. I
knew that Cuba has been "working on" Linux for a while. The problem
was that too many people in Cuba thought Windows and proprietary
software was superior, so Linux was not something people believed and
therefore worked on. Changing this understanding causes them the
behavior to change. I happen to think the same issue exists inside
companies like Dell and IBM.
>
> And now here you come another 2 years later with the same drool.
>
> It's beginning to sound a lot like Munich...
Munich is a much harder problem because of all their IT legacy.
>
> >> Of course, by day most of them use Windows to make a living, and refuse
> >> to find Linux jobs.
>
> > I recommend such people giving a copy of the current or next version
> > of my book to their boss ;-)
>
> Only if they're looking to get fired.
Hehe.
KeithCu
> On 5/6/2011 12:51 AM, KeithCu wrote:
>
> > I am just pointing out that Dell doesn't support Linux because they
> > don't understand it or they think they do but they aren't investing
> > enough in it. The problem is Dell's allocation of resources
>
> I always have to laugh when know-nothing Linux "advocates" sit in their
> apartments and basements and try to tell MS and Dell and IBM how to run
> their businesses.
>
> The problem is NOT Dell's allocation of resources to Linux - the problem
> is people don't buy Linux systems if Windows is available.
>
> Were Dell to quit selling Windows and offer only Linux systems, I
> believe they would be out of money and out of business in a few months.
> 99% of their customers would go to HP or Lenovo or Acer or Asus or
> Apple or any one of a hundred other popular computer sellers.
I never suggested that silly idea. It would be an optional offer. It
is a company with 103K people. They can easily afford it. And it could
make them more money.
>
> So you think Dell should and would hire people to maintain their own
> Dell Linux repos? You're out of your mind.
They already have this for Windows, and it is a big kludge.
>
> >> Dell does not support Linux to the level they support Windows because it
> >> does not make economic sense for them to do so.
>
> "advocates" don't have the common sense to understand that.
>
> > Dell has given tons of money to Microsoft, directly or indirectly by
> > hiring Windows programmers. Linux has always been cheaper for them.
> > And it creates new ways for them to make money. They only think it
> > doesn't make economic sense -- or they already think it does make
> > sense and they believe they are investing in it.
>
> Linux doesn't make economic sense for a retailer.
>
> Try it yourself and see: build some Linux systems and try to sell them
> on ebay and craigslist or thru a computer magazine or a store.
>
> > Maybe they didn't notice how it's gone 10x
> > in marketshare in the last few years.
>
> Where's your evidence for this numbnut claim?
If I linked to it, would you accept it? On the desktop, Linux is
growing dramatically. It might only be 2-3%, but it was a .3% not so
long ago. Like the boiling pot getting warmer, the frogs haven't
jumped.
>
> > These things change the situation but people don't notice.
>
> uh huh... only a few disgruntled Linux users see and understand the
> world of operating systems and software.
>
> >>> I really think if you talk to people at many companies today, you will
> >>> find they don't "get" free software / Linux. If they did, they'd
> >>> contribute more. Or they think they are but don't realize they aren't.
> >>> It is one of those choices.
>
> >> Nobody has an obligation to see things your way about Linux. I really do
> >> not know what point you are trying to make.
>
> Nor does KeithCu. His favorite comeback phrase begins with "I meant..."
> as if we're supposed to read his mind.
>
> > I'm just trying to explain that the problem is Dell's ignorance, not
> > Microsoft's evil.
>
> Dell is not ignorant, and MS is not evil.
You can see Dell's ignorance in what they do and what their leaders
say about Linux.
Homer
>> Stop whining and blaming others for your lack of success.
>
> This is well stated.
It's a denial of the documented evidence that proves the market was
interfered with using illegal business tactics.
> I am not an apologist for MS. I'm not a denialist either
Uh-hu.
> as if Windows is akin to genocide
Your hyperbole doesn't alter the fact that the law was broken, and no
effective remedy was ever implemented, thus leaving consumers without
effective choice, and a situation where some of us must pay for an OS
we don't want and will never use.
--
K. | "Linux hackers are on a mission
http://slated.org | from God" ~ The Vatican
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky |
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 81 days | http://tinyurl.com/linuxmission
Homer
>> The rules are different for monopolies, and rightly so.
>
> Yes, unfortunately no one could tell MS when they cross that
> threshold.
I'd say it was pretty damned obvious:
[quote]
Windows licence threat
But Barksdale said he was told that Microsoft wanted Netscape to stop
development of a Windows 95 browser (which was seen as the largest
potential browser market), in return for Microsoft agreeing to give
Netscape a clear run at the relatively small browser markets for Windows
3.x, MacOS and Unix.
Microsoft said it was also willing to make an investment in Netscape,
and wanted a seat on the board but Netscape refused the illegal
market-splitting suggestion, Barksdale said, and incurred Microsoft's
considerable wrath.
Barksdale's testimony described how "Microsoft began to use its market
power to extract exclusionary deals with many of the largest [PC
manufacturers and internet service providers]", threatening Netscape
customers such as Compaq that if it tried to replace the Internet
Explorer icon with the Netscape Navigator icon on its Presario range of
computers, Microsoft would withdraw Compaq's Windows 95 licence.
[/quote]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/business/2000/microsoft/635689.stm
Also note Microsoft's comment:
[quote]
Microsoft, by contrast, claims that Netscape is a whiner and poor
competitor.
[/quote]
Hmm, where have I heard that before?
Homer
> KeithCu wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> Borland was trying to kill MS.
[...]
> You guys have a sick view of competition.
Goons like Microsoft consider any sort of fair competition an attempt to
"kill" it. What they really mean, of course, is it might take a precious
1% of their market, which in their view is comparable to "killing", and
therefore justifies the complete annihilation of that competitor. Sort
of like mobsters shooting a two-bit liquor store owner because they
demand complete control of liquor distribution in that territory.
Alien concepts like subsistence, parity and cooperation would simply
never occur to such malevolent bastards.
Snit
> Verily I say unto thee, that KeithCu spake thusly:
>> On May 5, 10:07 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> Stop whining and blaming others for your lack of success.
>>
>> This is well stated.
>
> It's a denial of the documented evidence that proves the market was
> interfered with using illegal business tactics.
Who denied that? It is simply a statement of my wishes for you and others
to stop whining and blaming others for your lack of success. Please,
seriously, stop.
>> I am not an apologist for MS. I'm not a denialist either
>
> Uh-hu.
If you have contrary evidence then show it.
>> as if Windows is akin to genocide
>
> Your hyperbole doesn't alter the fact that the law was broken, and no
> effective remedy was ever implemented, thus leaving consumers without
> effective choice, and a situation where some of us must pay for an OS
> we don't want and will never use.
Consumers have choice: Windows, OS X, Ubuntu, Mint, Debian, PCLOS, etc.
Dozens of choices.
They do not make the choice you *want* them to make, or really *any* of the
choices you want them to make - at least not in significant numbers. Oh
well. Tough break for you.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Homer
> You can think whatever you want, all I can say is that many people in
> other companies besides Microsoft don't understand Linux yet.
The sort of people who make executive decisions rarely understand the
technical details of their own company's products. They don't need to,
they only need to understand markets and economics.
Clearly the problem has nothing to do with understanding, it's an
economic problem induced by commitments that make change difficult, if
not impossible.
Consider this: in every market where Microsoft doesn't control the
channel, Linux has thrived (servers, smartphones, embedded appliances,
supercomputers, network attached storage, media servers and extenders,
cloud computing, etc.)
Doesn't that tell you something about the unnatural state of the
desktop?
That's not ignorance, it's fear. We all know exactly what they're afraid
of, and it ain't Linux.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Fri, 06 May 2011 13:59:05 -0700, KeithCu wrote:
>> MS's entire history is one of dirty dealing. It's what they built
>> their empire on. To claim otherwise is to suggest you're either an MS
>> shill, or so woefully ignorant of the reality of the situation you have
>> no basis forming any opinion on the matter.
>
> I know all that history. My point is that it wasn't (very) relevant to
> their success.
Really? Okay, explain to us how they would have come to dominate the PC
landscape if it wasn't for the underhanded sliminess involving the
acquisition of DOS and their dealing with IBM.
Oh, wait, you can't - because that very deal was the thing which
solidified them as the major software player in the PC arena... and the
whole thing was chicanery from the outset.
"Wasn't very relevant to their success" indeed.
KeithCu
> Verily I say unto thee, that KeithCu spake thusly:
>
> > On May 6, 10:11 am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> The rules are different for monopolies, and rightly so.
>
> > Yes, unfortunately no one could tell MS when they cross that
> > threshold.
>
> I'd say it was pretty damned obvious:
>
> [quote]
> Windows licence threat
>
> But Barksdale said he was told that Microsoft wanted Netscape to stop
> development of a Windows 95 browser (which was seen as the largest
> potential browser market), in return for Microsoft agreeing to give
> Netscape a clear run at the relatively small browser markets for Windows
> 3.x, MacOS and Unix.
Microsoft was warning Barksdale that their web browser was going to
get run over on Windows and they wanted them to focus on something
else! It was friendly advice.
This is just talking. The issue is mostly pointless because both are
proprietary.
>
> Microsoft said it was also willing to make an investment in Netscape,
> and wanted a seat on the board but Netscape refused the illegal
> market-splitting suggestion, Barksdale said, and incurred Microsoft's
> considerable wrath.
>
> Barksdale's testimony described how "Microsoft began to use its market
> power to extract exclusionary deals with many of the largest [PC
> manufacturers and internet service providers]", threatening Netscape
> customers such as Compaq that if it tried to replace the Internet
> Explorer icon with the Netscape Navigator icon on its Presario range of
> computers, Microsoft would withdraw Compaq's Windows 95 licence.
> [/quote]
This is ancient history and has been worked on.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/business/2000/microsoft/635689.stm
>
> Also note Microsoft's comment:
>
> [quote]
> Microsoft, by contrast, claims that Netscape is a whiner and poor
> competitor.
> [/quote]
>
> Hmm, where have I heard that before?
There is plenty of evidence to support those claims. However reading
that evidence would probably make you angry.
-Keith
KeithCu
> Verily I say unto thee, that KeithCu spake thusly:
>
> > You can think whatever you want, all I can say is that many people in
> > other companies besides Microsoft don't understand Linux yet.
>
> The sort of people who make executive decisions rarely understand the
> technical details of their own company's products. They don't need to,
> they only need to understand markets and economics.
>
> Clearly the problem has nothing to do with understanding, it's an
> economic problem induced by commitments that make change difficult, if
> not impossible.
>
> Consider this: in every market where Microsoft doesn't control the
> channel, Linux has thrived (servers, smartphones, embedded appliances,
> supercomputers, network attached storage, media servers and extenders,
> cloud computing, etc.)
>
> Doesn't that tell you something about the unnatural state of the
> desktop?
>
> That's not ignorance, it's fear. We all know exactly what they're afraid
> of, and it ain't Linux.
You admitted above it was ignorance of "technical details".
-Keith
KeithCu
> "KeithCu" <keit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e10c200d-772c-4be2...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I am talking about with respect to free software versus Microsoft.
> > That is the point of this email alias. Hows this? The statement: "Dell
> > and IBM support Linux competently" is false.
>
> I don't think that either is true in any absolute sense. IBM certainly has
> used Linux to its advantage to crack the hold that Sun once had on the Unix
> Workstation and Unix Server businesses. They used Linux on their hardware
> to wreck the price umbrella that Sun used to fuel their erstwhile success.
> IBM lost their taste for PCs with the death of OS/2 and the ultimate triumph
> of Compaq and Dell over the IBM brand. IBM, of course, also has a valuable
> trade in AIX servers to shield from overall Linux adoption. Even so, the
> IBM effort is the singular event that dignified Linux in commerce. No one
> else could have done that.
There are many other things IBM could have done with regards to Linux
including contributing to Debian and supporting it in various ways.
Does the fingerprint reader work? They don't yet make it easy to buy a
computer with Linux pre-installed. I'd consider running an IBM /
Debian Linux. There are many things IBM is not doing and that tells
you what they don't know about Linux.
>
> Dell is in the PC business or, more exactly, in the Wintel PC business.
> Periodically they test the water for Linux based computers and make a fair
> effort to promote them. So far, it has resulted in their discontinuing the
> efforts, presumably due to lack of interest from consumers who might buy
> Dell products.
See above, also this:
----------
Sometimes the real hurdle to renewal is not a lack of options, but a
lack of flexibility in resource allocation. All too often, legacy
projects get richly funded year after year while new initiatives go
begging. This, more than anything, is why companies regularly forfeit
the future -- they over invest in “what is” at the expense of “what
could be.”
New projects are deemed “untested”, “risky”, or a “diversion of
resources.” Thus while senior execs may happily fund a billion-dollar
acquisition, someone a few levels down who attempts to “borrow” a half-
dozen talented individuals for a new project, or carve a few thousand
dollars out of a legacy budget, is likely to find the task on par with
a dental extraction.
The resource allocation model is typically biased against new ideas,
since it demands a level of certainty about volumes, costs, timelines,
and profits that simply can't be satisfied when an ideal is truly
novel. While it's easy to predict the returns on a project that is a
linear extension of an existing business, the payback on an
unconventional idea will be harder to calculate.
Managers running established businesses seldom have to defend the
strategic risk they take when they pour good money into a slowly
decaying business model, or overfund an activity that is already
producing diminishing returns.
How do you accelerate the redeployment of resources from legacy
programs to future-focused initiatives?
—Gary Hamel, The Future of Management
----------
>
> The same is true for the other major Wintel suppliers. Elsewhere you noted
> that the reason why Linux is not more popular is the failure of the
> advocates to educate the consumer in some form of acceptance of Linux as a
> alternative to Windows. The conventional wisdom in business circles is that
> such an effort is far too costly, at the scale that would have to be
> applied, to ever offer a payback for the investment required.
It is better to educate the technical people first, like those at IBM,
etc. before worrying about consumers. Linux has lost the battle of
ideas amongst the technical people. That has set things up for the
consumer.
-Keith
Homer
>>
>> You misunderstand. I don't want Microsoft's "support", I just want
>> them to stay out of the way. It isn't for them to "support" Free
>> Software anyway. I've seen Microsoft's attempt to "support" Free
>> Software, and it ain't pretty. Apart from anything else, it's
>> undoubtedly riddled with patent traps. No, I don't want Microsoft's
>> "support", thanks, I just want them to stop racketeering. That would
>> be the best support they could offer by far.
>
> Lawyers on all sides believe this has stopped.
Believe what has stopped? Patenting trivial ideas with undisclosed prior
art, then suppressing competing products with threats of patent
litigation?
No, they really haven't stopped that at all:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110427052238659
> My point was that these lies are not as immoral as not supporting free
> software.
Sorry, you've lost me there. How is "not supporting free software"
immoral? I'm probably one of the most radical Free Software protagonists
you'll ever meet, and even I can't see the immorality of simply "not
supporting free software". Microsoft is a proprietary software company.
They wouldn't know what to do with Free Software if it slapped them in
the face. I don't want them to go anywhere near Free Software, they'd
only taint it, in more ways that one. "Not supporting free software" is
simply abstention. That in itself isn't immoral. The sort of negative
interference Microsoft engages in with other companies, OTOH, is highly
immoral, and so is your (and their) lying.
>> If Microsoft truly have products that people "demand", then they
>> shouldn't need to sabotage others businesses with trivial patent
>> trolling, exclusion "deals", and their innumerable other dirty
>> dealings.
>
> They don't know software patents are bad.
Do they know that deliberately withholding prior art in their patent
applications is bad?
You're making excuses for their behaviour again. Microsoft patents the
most ridiculously and obviously trivial things, then Ballmer throws his
huge sweaty body around demanding that companies like Red Hat own them
money, and you believe that's all just an honest misunderstanding?
I'm not sure what's worse, their thuggish behaviour or your naivety.
> They are like many other companies and people.
They're about as far removed from any normal company or person as is
imaginable.
> Yes, Dell and HP need to quit thinking they are handcuffed to
> Microsoft. But their silly ideas are not Microsoft's fault.
Rubbish.
>> Of course, with Microsoft's predatory volume licensing penalties,
>> regulators would also need to make sure retailers weren't
>> inadvertently being punished by being forced to essentially pay for
>> one copy of Windows for every PC they sell, even though they could no
>> longer force customers to accept it, leaving them with unsold
>> "licenses".
>
> That was a part of the consent decree.
No it wasn't. The consent decree only compelled Microsoft to offer
volume licensing discounts without prejudice, it didn't stop them from
offering a tiered pricing structure based on volume. If the number of
licenses an OEM purchases falls below a certain threshold, it pays a
higher price per license than competitors who meet that threshold, and
its margins are lost. This is the whole basis of volume discounts.
Microsoft can (and I believe has) manipulated that tiered pricing
structure such that the best discounts match their estimate for an OEM
"partner's" sales volume, so the OEM must buy a number of licenses
approximately equal to the total number of PCs it is projected to sell.
The net effect is one PC, one license, more or less, with almost no room
to offer competing systems (without making a loss). The final outcome
is therefore no different to the previous contract, which explicitly
forbade OEMs from offering competing products.
You ought to know. Didn't you ever see an OEM contract during your time
with Microsoft.
[snip unbundling proposal]
>> Problem solved.
>
> It doesn't make Linux better.
That's not the problem I was trying to solve, and I don't want to,
because that aspect of it doesn't interest me in the slightest. I'm not
even especially convinced it /is/ a "problem", it's merely an unending
work in progress, and I'll leave that to those who actually care.
> If you want to focus on ethics, that is great. I am not an amoral
> person and I respect that.
And yet you defend lying as acceptable, and all sorts of other highly
reprehensible libertarian causes.
> I only touch on it, and my focus is on having people quit thinking
> government is the means to implement their personal ideas.
That's a twisted outlook. The whole premise of democracy is
representation. How exactly is a democratic government supposed to
represent its citizens if it doesn't listen to them?
> We mostly need to remove the bad laws (corn-based ethanol, 100K pages
> of tax code
Those must be American laws, and I'm not familiar with them, since I'm
not an American, and I have no idea what you're referring to.
> government run-education
Are you suggesting that only the rich deserve an education?
> not make government more intrusive.
That's a polemic argument that tars all forms government intervention as
somehow wrong (another typically libertarian gambit).
Governments need to be /more/ "intrusive" in matters of corporate
corruption, and less "intrusive" in matters of civil liberties. The
balance of regulation in America is currently wrong, not the mere
existence of it.
The UK suffers a similar problem, although currently to a far lesser
extent than America.
> I meant that people who argue with the ref the whole game usually end
> up losing.
I didn't realise you'd appointed yourself as the referee. Frankly I
don't even consider you much of a player. Whatever game you're playing
seems completely irrelevant to my goals. It's not even the same sport.
> COLA people do not have power to make changes.
That argument almost sounds fascist.
I have principles, and a voice to express them.
That's all the power I need.
Homer
> On May 6, 7:17 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that KeithCu spake thusly:
> Microsoft was warning Barksdale that their web browser was going to
> get run over on Windows and they wanted them to focus on something
> else! It was friendly advice.
LOL! Yeah, I'm sure.
> This is ancient history and has been worked on.
So you keep claiming. I've yet to see any actual evidence of it though.
>> Also note Microsoft's comment:
>>
>> [quote]
>> Microsoft, by contrast, claims that Netscape is a whiner and poor
>> competitor.
>> [/quote]
>>
>> Hmm, where have I heard that before?
>
> There is plenty of evidence to support those claims.
How exactly does one support a highly subjective claim like "whiner"?
And AFAICT the only thing that made Netscape a "poor competitor" was
Microsoft's documented and irrefutable threats towards OEMs WRT their
software.
> However reading that evidence would probably make you angry.
Oh please go ahead. I enjoy being angry.