HOW MICROSOFT USED A SECRET VENDOR LICENSE TO (ALMOST?) KILL BEOS
Mark S Bilk
vendor license to prevent companies from selling computers having
both MS-Windows and another operating system pre-installed, and
allowing the user to boot either OS. This has (nearly) killed the
BeOS operating system commercially, and has greatly slowed the
acceptance of GNU/Linux, because it's much easier to use an
operating system that's already installed and functioning than it
is to install it yourself. (For more info on the fate of BeOS,
see the Be newsgroups in this article's header.)
http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/byt20010824s0001/
The Be View
BYTE Magazine > The Be View > 2001 > August
He Who Controls the Bootloader
By Scot Hacker
August 27, 2001
The day before I submitted this column, news hit the Net that
the other shoe had finally dropped. After months of waiting and
wondering what was to become of Be, we learned that Palm, Inc.
will be purchasing Be's technology, intellectual property, and
assets. While we don't yet know exactly what Palm plans to do
with Be, my guess is that the company intends to beef up and
extend its product line -- make palm-sized devices more
media-friendly, and possibly build appliance-like units for the
home. As analyst William Crawford recently said, "Where they
have to go, Be already is." Be's lightweight footprint and
excellent media handing capabilities make the technology a good
fit. Be will receive $11 million in Palm stock, which they
intend to liquidate to pay off debts. Considering that Apple
allegedly once considered paying $125 million for Be, Palm got
Be for a song -- a fire-sale blowout.
Palm initially stated that they don't intend to develop a
desktop version of BeOS, which means the version of BeOS you're
using now may be the last one you'll ever see. However, users
who have corresponded with Palm's top ranks have been met with
an open ear, and BeFAQs is currently preparing a full report on
the state and potential of the BeOS user base for the big
cheeses at Palm. Whether the report will have any effect is
anybody's guess, but barring a miracle, it seems that BeOS is
now officially dead in terms of its prospects for further
evolution. That, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's dead to
the users who already have it installed. The BeOS user base
will likely become similar to the Amiga user base -- hanging on
to those souped-up boxes out of sheer love for years, maybe
decades.
Some in the community met the news with relief. Others simply
seem exhausted by the endless process of battling ridiculous
odds, and are ready to move on to something else. But many
still believe deeply in what Be is and what they've created.
Believe that there is a way to best Microsoft at its own game
(without having to tread the open-source quagmire). Believe
that there is no better desktop user experience, period.
But the reality is that Be's failure has made a point to the
world, to whit: "Don't bother trying to create a better
commercial desktop OS -- it doesn't matter how hard you try,
how many engineers you throw at the problem, how much money you
spend, or how many years you put into it. Microsoft owns that
space and, worse, the public is totally complicit with that
fact. People will not stop using Windows. It is a losing
battle."
It is unlikely now that anyone will ever again attempt what Be,
Amiga, and IBM attempted. And that's the saddest thing of all
-- the insidious ways in which the monopoly has wormed itself
into the fabric of our economy and culture. The message that
"resistance is futile" has been hammered home. The only OS
projects that stand a chance are open source, because they
don't play by the rules of the economy. But open-source
projects seem either unable or unwilling to create a system
that approaches the elegance, speed, and ease-of-use of BeOS.
If you want an x86 system with a future, you're now bound
either to the mess of GNU/Linux or to the Windows donkey cart,
with all of the political and technological baggage that
entails.
Speaking of the insidious tendrils of The Monopoly and its
effect on small companies like Be who dare to set foot in the
ogre's front yard, on with this month's intended column.
Peaceful Coexistence? Right.
It is statistically unlikely that a person purchasing a new
computer is ever going to change its operating system -- the OS
that comes with the computer you buy at the local computer
mega-store is probably going to be the OS you use for years, if
not forever. And while it is technically trivial for a hardware
vendor to set up hard drives to dual- or triple-boot multiple
operating systems, very few people have the interest -- or the
huevos -- to repartition their hard drives and install
additional OSs after the original point of purchase. Therefore,
few things could be more financially critical to an
operating-system vendor than to have one's product preinstalled
on consumer computers.
There is no technical reason why CompUSA customers shouldn't be
able to walk out of the shop with a machine that asks "Which OS
do you want to use today?" upon boot. And yet, even today,
after several years of relentless news about how Linux is ready
for the general desktop and business customer, one does not
find dual-boot Win/Linux machines from large commercial OEMs at
any consumer outlet or web shop I know of. Yes, you can get
dual-boot machines at some of the smaller shops, but these are
the ones that slip under Microsoft's radar, and there's no
guarantee that Microsoft won't decide to take action against
these vendors at some point. And yes, you can buy Linux-only
machines from vendors such as IBM. But think about it: Why
would IBM sell Windows machines and Linux machines, but no
dual-boot Win/Linux machines? The absence is conspicuous.
A few years ago, Be's CEO Jean-Louis Gassée used the phrase
"peaceful coexistence with Windows" to describe his company's
intended relationship with Microsoft on the consumer's hard
drive. Later, when it became clear that Microsoft had no
intention of coexisting with a rival OS vendor peacefully,
Gassée recanted, saying, "I once preached peaceful coexistence
with Windows. You may laugh at my expense -- I deserve it."
With so little profit margin in the computer retail business,
and with so little to set one brand of computer apart from
another, it would seem that out-of-the-box dual-boot
capabilities would be a tremendous differentiating factor for
hardware vendors. It would seem that there would be financial
incentives for computer vendors to be asking Be for
10,000-license deals. These bundling arrangements would be good
for Be, good for OEMs, and good for consumers.
In his own column, Gassée has written several times about
Microsoft's Windows OEM License and the ways in which it limits
the freedoms of PC OEMs. In July 2001, I spoke with Gassée to
find out why no dual-boot computers with BeOS or Linux
installed alongside Windows can be purchased today.
In the 1998-1999 timeframe, ready to prime the pump with its
desktop offering, Be offered BeOS for free to any major
computer manufacturer willing to preinstall BeOS on machines
alongside Windows. Although few in the Be community ever knew
about the discussions, Gassée says that Be was engaged in
enthusiastic discussions with Dell, Compaq, Micron, and
Hitachi. Taken together, preinstallation arrangements with
vendors of this magnitude could have had a major impact on the
future of Be and BeOS. But of the four, only Hitachi actually
shipped a machine with BeOS pre-installed. The rest apparently
backed off after a closer reading of the fine print in their
Microsoft Windows License agreements. Hitachi did ship a line
of machines (the Flora Prius) with BeOS preinstalled, but made
changes to the bootloader -- rendering BeOS invisible to the
consumer -- before shipping. Apparently, Hitachi received a
little visit from Microsoft just before shipping the Flora
Prius, and were reminded of the terms of the license.
Be was forced to post detailed instructions on their web site
explaining to customers how to unhide their hidden BeOS
partitions. It is likely that most Flora Prius owners never
even saw the BeOS installations to which they were entitled.
Bootloader as Trade Secret
So why aren't there any dual-boot computers for sale? The
answer lies in the nature of the relationship Microsoft
maintains with hardware vendors. More specifically, in the
"Windows License" agreed to by hardware vendors who want to
include Windows on the computers they sell. This is not the
license you pretend to read and click "I Accept" when
installing Windows. This license is not available online. This
is a confidential license, seen only by Microsoft and computer
vendors. You and I can't read the license because Microsoft
classifies it as a "trade secret." The license specifies that
any machine which includes a Microsoft operating system must
not also offer a nonMicrosoft operating system as a boot
option. In other words, a computer that offers to boot into
Windows upon startup cannot also offer to boot into BeOS or
Linux. The hardware vendor does not get to choose which OSes to
install on the machines they sell -- Microsoft does.
"Must not?" What, does Microsoft hold a gun to the vendor's
head? Not quite, but that wouldn't be a hyperbolic metaphor.
Instead, Microsoft threatens to revoke the vendor's license to
include Windows on the machine if the bootloader license is
violated. Because the world runs on Windows, no hardware vendor
can afford to ship machines that don't include Windows
alongside whatever alternative they might want to offer.
The essence of the government's antitrust beef with Microsoft
is that the company limits competition by leveraging its
dominant position in the marketplace (it's important to
remember that monopolies are not illegal -- abusing them is).
To prove its case, the government focused on the browser wars
and the harm done to Netscape by Microsoft's inclusion of a
free web browser in the operating system.
In my opinion, the browser issue pales in comparison to the
egregiousness of the bootloader situation. The browser is
arguably an essential component of modern computing -- a
commodity product as worthy of inclusion in the OS as a text
editor or calculator. Be, too, bundles a web browser with its
OS, and I'm glad they do. Questions of how the browser is
integrated are much more interesting, since they connect to the
point of whether Microsoft's browser bundling intent was
anticompetitive or not. In BeOS, for example, it's always been
possible to remove the browser from the OS simply by dragging
it to the Trash, which is very different from the situation
under Windows.
But I digress. The point is that the browser situation is
easily debatable, while the bootloader situation is far more
cut-and-dried. I would wager that few lawyers could come up
with a cogent argument to describe how Microsoft's bootloader
policy is not anticompetitive in the strictest sense of the
term. After all, Microsoft is first and foremost an
operating-system vendor. Be and Microsoft were competing on
much more similar territory than were Netscape and Microsoft.
But when it came to the DOJ vs. Microsoft antitrust trial,
things got even more interesting.
DOJ Misses the Point
On request of the DOJ, Gassée had several pre-trial
conversations with prosecuting attorney David Boies* and
Assistant Attorney General Joel Klein. Gassée explained the
bootloader situation to them. They listened and heard. But they
did not ask Gassée to testify on the bootloader issue. Instead,
they asked Gassée to testify on the matter of browser
integration. Gassée warned them that he would be a "dangerous
witness," since his feelings on browser integration were
actually sympathetic with Microsoft's. Gassée wanted to testify
on the bootloader issue, where he felt the core of the case
really rested. Klein and Boies told Gassée he could testify
with focus on the "malicious intent" aspect of the browser
integration question, but not on the bootloader matter.
Needless to say, Gassée declined to participate in the rest of
the case. The bootloader issue was raised during the trial,
however. Raised, but not actually addressed, because Microsoft
claimed (in a court session closed to the public and the media)
that the Windows License was a "trade secret." However,
Microsoft never denied that the license exists, and never
denied that it works as I've described here.
In November of 1999, Judge Jackson released his Findings of
Fact, which legally established that Microsoft had been
engaging in anticompetitive practices. The Findings mentioned
Be and BeOS in several places. However, the only reference to
the bootloader situation was found tucked in the middle of
paragraph 49, and merely obfuscated the significance of the
issue:
Although the BeOS could run an Intel-compatible PC system
without Windows, it is almost always loaded on a system along
with Windows. What is more, when these dual-loaded PC systems
are turned on, Windows automatically boots; the user must then
take affirmative steps to invoke the BeOS. While this scheme
allows the BeOS to occupy a niche in the market, it does not
place the product on a trajectory to replace Windows on a
significant number of PCs.
Despite the convoluted summary, Be's stock price skyrocketed
over the next few days as a result of the BeOS mentions in
Jackson's findings, eclipsing even RHAT and APPL in trading
volume. But that blip on the radar did nothing to mitigate the
real issue -- the greatest opportunity Be had ever had to
inform the government and the public of this stunningly
obnoxious example of anticompetitive behavior -- one that, in
my opinion, eclipses the browser integration issue -- had come
and gone, leaving Be no closer to securing those all-important
bundling deals with the world's largest PC hardware vendors.
The burning question, of course, is why Boies and Klein didn't
want Gassée to testify on the bootloader issue, especially when
it could have substantially helped their case? The answer
provided to Gassée was that the case was by then already too
well established. Including the bootloader issue would have
meant rewriting many of the arguments and calling in a new
collection of witnesses. In other words, it wasn't convenient
for the U.S. government to get to the meat of the matter. It
would have been too much of a hassle to address Microsoft's
anticompetitive behavior in its purest form. In addition, no PC
OEM was willing to testify on bootloader issues. And why would
they? The threat of losing favor with Microsoft easily would
have outweighed any potential benefit from being able to
preload the unproven Be operating system alongside Windows on
their machines. Finally, Be didn't have the brand recognition
that Netscape did; Netscape made for a much better poster
child.
*Boies, by the way, did not even have e-mail as of August 2000
-- the highest technology case in the land was prosecuted by a
man who could fairly be described as technologically
illiterate.
Controlling the Hardware Landscape
One might wonder, as I did, why Be did not file separate suit
on this issue. It would seem that Be's case would be extremely
strong, especially with the precedent and backing of the
Findings of Fact. In winning such a suit, Be would stand to
make a pile of quick cash and to greatly extend their public
visibility. Oh, and they might just win the opportunity to ship
alongside Windows on consumer computer hardware.
But Be did not sue Microsoft, and as far as I can tell, is not
currently in the process of suing Microsoft. Why not? First of
all, a lawsuit against Microsoft would be incredibly expensive
and time consuming. Unfortunately, Be cannot currently afford
either the time or the money, not to mention the distraction of
a major lawsuit. But couldn't Be have filed suit in early 2000,
in the window that opened immediately after the Findings of
Fact were released? Yes, answers Gassée, but Be was waiting to
see what the court's recommended remedy would be. After all, it
seemed likely at the time that Microsoft would be forced to
change many of its business practices. Why should Be have sued
to accomplish what it looked like the government was going to
do anyway?
So here we are in 2001, and guess what? It's still not possible
to purchase a dual-boot Win/Linux machine. Doesn't that seem
kind of odd? With all of the hype Linux has gotten, and with
the technical simplicity of shipping dual-boot machines, not a
single PC OEM is shipping such a beast. The technology
marketplace is glutted with options. Vendors use even the
smallest opportunities to trumpet their differentiating
factors. Linux is free. And yet there are no commercially
available dual-boot machines on the market. Not one. The
silence of the marketplace speaks volumes. There is no other
way to explain this phenomenon other than as a repercussion of
the confidential Windows License under which every hardware
vendor must do business.
Last time I checked, x86 computer hardware is supposed to be
operating system agnostic. My System Commander operator's
manual tells me there are more than 80 known operating systems
capable of being booted on x86 hardware (most of them obscure,
of course). And yet, Microsoft has managed to massively
influence the course of the supposedly OS-neutral hardware
marketplace. Compaq, Dell, Hitachi, and all the rest of them
work under Microsoft's terms and conditions. Microsoft has
shaped and controlled the hardware landscape as much as they
have shaped and controlled the software landscape.
They're getting away with it. They slipped through the DOJ
trial without the bootloader issue becoming the thorn it should
have. As far as I know, the terms of the Windows OEM License
have not changed. The recommended legal remedies against
Microsoft have largely been stricken, and Microsoft is
currently deflecting attention from the real issues by agreeing
to remove some icons from the XP desktop (as if that mattered
in contrast to the larger issues at stake). Klein and Boies
helped to prevent the bootloader issue from becoming a central
component of the DOJ's case. And we were never the wiser.
As a result of all this, Be's business may have suffered in
ways that will never be possible to measure. I'd go as far as
to suggest that successful bundling arrangements with large PC
vendors could easily have made the difference between the
obscure BeOS of today and what could have been a popular,
user-friendly and profitable alternative to Windows for the
masses. On the other hand, Be may have failed to gain mass
acceptance even with major vendor bundling deals. But we would
have had the opportunity to "experience what a truly
competitive situation might be like." In any case, the
miscarriage of justice was absolute.
What we know for sure is that Microsoft treated the PC hardware
platform as if it owned it, and thus hurt consumers, software
developers, PC OEMs, OS competitors, and the industry in
general. That's a layman's definition of abusing a monopoly.
-- Jean Louis Gassée, July 2000
Postscript: My copy of the San Francisco Chronicle for August
17 contains an article on the Palm purchase and includes the
following extremely interesting paragraph:
Although it will cease operations, Be said that it will retain
certain rights and assets, including its cash and cash
equivalents -- $4.9 million as of June 30 -- and "rights
to...bring certain causes of action, including under antitrust
laws."
In other words, Be may yet opt to sue Microsoft, which could be
a very interesting case to watch. Let's just hope the media
figures out where the real antitrust issues are this time.
__________________________________________________________
Scot Hacker is the webmaster of The BeOS Tip Server, and author
of The BeOS Bible, the definitive guide to using BeOS. Hacker
has written for publications including Byte.com, Wired, PC
Magazine, Windows Sources, ZDNet, Tripod, and the Utne Reader.
He most recently finished writing MP3: The Definitive Guide for
O'Reilly and Associates. Scot Hacker is a stockholder in Be,
Inc.
For more of Scot's columns, visit the Be View Index Page.
BYTE Forums
Want to talk about this article?
The Be View
.
> According to the article quoted below, Microsoft has used a secret
> vendor license to prevent companies from selling computers having
> both MS-Windows and another operating system pre-installed, and
> allowing the user to boot either OS. This has (nearly) killed the
> BeOS operating system commercially,
Note: it did kill it. Be Inc. is dead and buried. Long live palm.
-----.
--
Theres a hole in the world like a great black pit and
its filled with people who are filled with shit and the
vermin of the world inhabit it
Matt Bonyak
(and might I add, the government is going after them for the wrong
reasons), I think it is somewhat of an anti-MS propoganda. Don't get me
wrong, I'm not in bed with Microsoft or anything, but... Microsoft didn't
kill BeOS, PALM did.
Erik Funkenbusch
the same computer?
"Mark S Bilk" <ma...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote in message
news:LaNi7.1094$aC1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
.
> Since when is it a secret that MS doesn't allow OEM's to ship two OS's on
> the same computer?
Its something of a question of legality at this point, spinmaster funkybreath.
mmn...@mmnnoo.org
Are you going to defend the practice, or simply content yourself
with the fact that it's blatant?
Erik Funkenbusch
news:9mggfb$o06$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
> > Since when is it a secret that MS doesn't allow OEM's to ship two OS's
on
> > the same computer?
>
> Its something of a question of legality at this point, spinmaster
funkybreath.
That doesn't explain how it's "a secret" as the title says.
SteveCampbell
> Since when is it a secret that MS doesn't allow OEM's to ship two OS's on
> the same computer?
>
OMG EF is admitting to MS using illegal and immoral tactics
"And in other news, tonightcoca-cola announced that no store may sell pepsi
and still be allowed to sell coke"
--
registered Linux user #212154
Don't get mad, get Linux
Newbies concise guide to all this commandline business.
Essential reading!!! ( and short and quire funny too:) )
http://www.cmm.uklinux.net/steve/ntt.html
Eugenia Loli-Queru
That shitty "Trade License" was and IS a trade secret for Microsoft. Scot
and JLG decided to make it known now though instead of 3-4 years ago.
Probably JLG is not afraid anymore to talk about it, as Be's IP is now sold
and he will not be having a company to protect. Makes sense.
Eugenia
Stephen Howe
news:lgPi7.13214$x84.3...@ruti.visi.com...
> Since when is it a secret that MS doesn't allow OEM's to ship two OS's on
> the same computer?
Please cite relevant URLs on Microsofts site supporting your claim.
This is news to me and I have never heard Microsoft broadcast that OEMs are
not allowed by themselves to do this.
Stephen Howe
Matt Bonyak
1) That is an insignificant detail, the whole point of the article still
stands over the use of "Secret" in the post subject, and you know that.
2) Whether you know or not, it is a "secret" in that it is kept in their
agreement with venders that is not to be publicly disclosed. Go into the
street and ask 100 people, see how many know this non-secret. (Or should I
say, see how many care?)
F. Robert Falbo
<400+ lines of quotes deleted>
> Since when is it a secret that MS doesn't allow OEM's to ship two OS's on
> the same computer?
What's even worse is people that quote 400+ lines of text just to make a
one line comment. Please try learning how to quote so that those who don't
have cablemodems have an easier time.
Thank you.
--
-bob-
_______________________________________
KNode Newsreader on SuSE 7.2 Pro
F. Robert Falbo
> That doesn't explain how it's "a secret" as the title says.
OK, Erik, if you don't think its a secret, email M$ and request a copy of
their standard OEM contract. They wouldn't give one to the DOJ, and
claimed its a "Trade Secret". What part of "Secret" in the last sentence
can't you understand?
Galley_SimRacer
> And yeah Erik Funkenbusch Did speak unto the masses thusly:
>
>> Since when is it a secret that MS doesn't allow OEM's to ship two
> OS's on
>> the same computer?
>>
> OMG EF is admitting to MS using illegal and immoral tactics
> "And in other news, tonightcoca-cola announced that no store may sell
> pepsi
> and still be allowed to sell coke"
>
Pepsi won the cola wars", you would know that stuff like that does go on
to some extent in the fountain business. This is the same company that
was caught bribing Soviet officials trying to get Coke sold in the
U.S.S.R.
--
"Life is what you experience between racing games"
Galley
F. Robert Falbo
> Please cite relevant URLs on Microsofts site supporting your claim.
> This is news to me and I have never heard Microsoft broadcast that OEMs
> are not allowed by themselves to do this.
It's not news to anyone who's used OS/2 for over 5 years. M$ also used
their Ad matching funds money to force advertisers to keep the OS/2 logo
off any advertisement that sported the Windows Logo. It's just a small
part of a long list of things M$ did to pressure OEMs and Developers to
only support Windows.
Eugenia Loli-Queru
cannot break it or even acknowledge it exists.
I would link to this person's comment (scroll down the page to read it):
http://www.rootprompt.org/article.php3?article=2924
Great, overall, comment..
Eugenia
"Stephen Howe" <SPAMstephe...@tnsofres.com> wrote in message
news:3b8bd807$1$227$ed9e...@reading.news.pipex.net...
Scott Craver
>> That doesn't explain how it's "a secret" as the title says.
>
>That shitty "Trade License" was and IS a trade secret for Microsoft. Scot
>and JLG decided to make it known now though instead of 3-4 years ago.
>Probably JLG is not afraid anymore to talk about it,
Actually, JLG spoke a great length about these MS license
restrictions, years ago. In fact, he did so in his classic,
flamboyant manner: he once publicly declared that if any
OEM was brave enough to add BeOS to their boxes, he'd let
them do so for free. Was that 1999, or 1998? I think 1999.
Furthermore, I think Scot Hacker may be playing down the
extent to which the tactic was publicized by the Microsoft trial.
The New York Times included it on their bullet point summary
of the findings of fact, for a front page story. They seemed
to consider it an important point, however buried it may have
been in the text.
In short, it's been publicly known for a while. I've always
wondered, like the other Scot, why this didn't become a more
developed line of attack in the anti-trust case, as it is a
much more clear and direct anticompetitive practice than
fuzzy browser etc etc.
Scott
Charlie Ebert
>Since when is it a secret that MS doesn't allow OEM's to ship two OS's on
>the same computer?
>
Since WHEN IS IT, such a statement should just be TAKEN without
QUESTION????
What kind of FUCKING DECENT POLICY IS THAT?
You make the statement as if there is NOTHING wrong with
the reasoning...
That's very mental folks.
Charlie
Charlie Ebert
Okay, screw the secret crap.
What makes the policy right?
Charlie
Charlie Ebert
>the same computer?
>
DEAR MR. & MRS. REPUBLICAN.
SINCE WHEN IS IT CONSIDERED RIGHT TO LOCK OFF COMPETION IN
THIS NEW WORLD ORDER YOU'VE PAINTED FOR US HERE...
If somebody said you couldn't DEAL with CHINA, there
would be a piss fight about now.
What's up with this crap folks!
Sincerely,
Charlie
Michael P. Reed
> DEAR MR. & MRS. REPUBLICAN.
>
What does this have to do with Republicans?
--
Regards,
Michael P. Reed
Michael P. Reed
SteveCampbell
Hey Galley, what's yer game?
I have a copy of windows installed PURELY for gp2 gp3 and GPL, don't tell
me your a " velcro the pedal down and turn left all day" type?
Also a dab hand in a WRC or a brittish tourer:)
Living is that moment when you exit the parabolica and take the lettering
off your tyres against the armco:)
Charlie Ebert
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 23:22:57 GMT, kd...@charlie.ebertlan.org (Charlie
>Ebert) wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>>DEAR MR. & MRS. REPUBLICAN.
>>
>>SINCE WHEN IS IT CONSIDERED RIGHT TO LOCK OFF COMPETION IN
>>THIS NEW WORLD ORDER YOU'VE PAINTED FOR US HERE...
>>
>>If somebody said you couldn't DEAL with CHINA, there
>>would be a piss fight about now.
>>
>>What's up with this crap folks!
>>
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Charlie
>>
>>
>
>#1. Learn how to snip.
>
>#2. This is nothing new. Example: If you sell Coke and Pepsi in the same
>vending machine, you are in violation of your distributor agreement with
>both companies. Neither one allows their product to be sold next to the
>other.
>
WRONG DIPSHIT! I'm not buying the fucking vending machine, only the
coke!
You BUY the COMPUTER! It doesn't dispense anything!
>Ever notice that you can't buy coke in Taco Bell? (Pepsi Co owns Taco
>Bell) Ditto with KFC and Pizza Hut
>
I'm not BUYING TACO BELL EITHER...
>Personally, if I owned a copy, and had the clout, I wouldn't allow my
>competitors products to be sold near mine either. That's just good
>business sense.
>
And you'd be a TRAITOR to the FREE ENTRERPRISE SYSTEM.
We don't really have a FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM when it comes to
PC's, we have the SOVIET UNION in the form of Microsoft.
Charlie
Joe User
Beretta <no_wook...@please.com> wrote in message
news:mudootkk7tbu9o84o...@4ax.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 23:22:57 GMT, kd...@charlie.ebertlan.org (Charlie
> Ebert) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> >
> >SINCE WHEN IS IT CONSIDERED RIGHT TO LOCK OFF COMPETION IN
> >THIS NEW WORLD ORDER YOU'VE PAINTED FOR US HERE...
> >
> >If somebody said you couldn't DEAL with CHINA, there
> >would be a piss fight about now.
> >
> >What's up with this crap folks!
> >
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Charlie
> >
> >
>
> #1. Learn how to snip.
>
> #2. This is nothing new. Example: If you sell Coke and Pepsi in the same
> vending machine, you are in violation of your distributor agreement with
> both companies. Neither one allows their product to be sold next to the
> other.
>
> Bell) Ditto with KFC and Pizza Hut
>
> competitors products to be sold near mine either. That's just good
> business sense.
And it's illegal as hell if you're a monopoly. The rules are different for
monopolies, Beretta, for very good (and what should be obvious) reasons.
--
Joe User
Charlie Ebert
Easy.
They believe in FREE TRADE.
Well, allowing MS to pirate the BOOT sector and
make agreements which do not allow for the sale
of dual OS machines is totally against their
FREE TRADE notions.
They want to cause COMPETION in EVERYTHING for
EVERYBODY but not MICROSOFT.
Charlie
Dr. Archmonk
> WRONG DIPSHIT! I'm not buying the fucking vending machine, only the
> coke! You BUY the COMPUTER! It doesn't dispense anything!
You're completely missing the point, Chuck. No, you're not buying the
vending machine, but did you think it grew there on its own? Somebody
has to pay for it to be there. Generally, you buy or lease the vending
machine from the soda company, and then someone from that company
comes to refill it every so often. Do you really think that if you
lease a vending machine from Coca-Cola, it'll have Pepsi or 7-Up in
it? Don't be so naive. Yes, in a perfect world all the competing
companies would get along in perfect harmony, and they'd all want you
to buy the product you thought was best. But this isn't a perfect
world, and every company wants you to buy only _their_ products.
> > Personally, if I owned a copy, and had the clout, I wouldn't allow my
> > competitors products to be sold near mine either. That's just good
> > business sense.
> And you'd be a TRAITOR to the FREE ENTRERPRISE SYSTEM.
> We don't really have a FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM when it comes to
> PC's, we have the SOVIET UNION in the form of Microsoft.
Wipe the spittle off your monitor and _read_ the posts. Have an adult
explain them to you. Take some business and economics classes when you
get old enough. It is good business sense, and Microsoft has always
had good business sense; such good business sense that they've snuffed
out what competition they had. Certainly, Microsoft has done bad
things, but it worked: they own the OS and office-suite markets, and
the government's trial has basically fizzled out.
GreyCloud
How has the government trial 'fizzled-out'??
They haven't even finished yet.
Flacco
>> on the same computer?
Since when should it be any of Microsoft's fucking business whether the
OEM wants to include another OS on a computer?
This is what finally turned me off of MS - not the shitty software, not
the inflated cost of the software - it was the pathological, insatiable
need of MS to control EVERYTHING and obliterate EVERYTHING that finally
disgusted me to the point of kicking them out of my life.
I hope I live to see the day that Microsoft dies and rots in hell.
Jeffrey S. Kline
There is a distinct possibility that Microsoft's tactics are going to come
back to haunt them... There is a possibility that future updates to current
versions of Windows will include "special" tools designed to begin to
degrade or kill performance and functionality of the current customer base
machines, in an attempt to convince them to upgrade to Windows XP Home
Edition. Being a programmer, I know it is entirely possible to put stuff in
there to surreptitiously damage or stop the software in ways to make it
impossible to continue without a full clean reload. The average "Joe/Jane
Customer" will more than likely just upgrade so they don't have to worry
about it rather than fix what they have. I am grabbing the current updates
to Windoz 95 and 98 and storing them in CD form. This way, I can open them
up and scrutinize whats what, and save the valid stuff and toss out the
spyware and other garbage. Rule of thumb lately is don't download much
anymore patches and such from Microsoft. There is no real easy way to
determine if it's a valid fix to a problem, or another way to sneak a bomb
into your current software. IMHO.
Also dump Realplayer from both Beos and from Windows. Its spyware to the max
and perpetually broken, especially now since Microsoft doesn't want you
using that anymore and instead wants you loading Windows Media Player. Go
figure! Even the Linux version of Realplayer is broken and unfortunately
most of the "major" sites on the web are using the "latest and greatest" to
play it, which requires the spyware inflated, current versions of
Realplayer... Forget it. IMHO.
I'm also grabbing as much of the current stuff from several Be sites and
burning that to CD's too so if the sites disappear, I'll still have a
library to access. Should keep me going well into the next few years I
suspect.
--
Cheers; Jeff
c/o The Gass Can Productions
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Full service portable 16 track digital facility
with complete graphic arts production.
All your recording and demo needs in one place!!!
"Flacco" <flac...@spambadtwilight-systems.com> wrote in message
news:6d5j7.3386$Fv3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mark S Bilk
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, kd...@charlie.ebertlan.org (Charlie Ebert) wrote:
> Don't be so naive. Yes, in a perfect world all the competing
>companies would get along in perfect harmony, and they'd all want you
>to buy the product you thought was best. But this isn't a perfect
>world, and every company wants you to buy only _their_ products.
>
>> > Personally, if I owned a copy, and had the clout, I wouldn't allow my
>> > competitors products to be sold near mine either. That's just good
>> > business sense.
>> And you'd be a TRAITOR to the FREE ENTRERPRISE SYSTEM.
>> We don't really have a FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM when it comes to
>> PC's, we have the SOVIET UNION in the form of Microsoft.
This is a very important insight, Charlie. The idea that
capitalism encourages competition, and that the best goods and
services are thus selected and purchased by consumers, rewarding
their makers and ensuring that the best survive and continue to
improve, is a wonderful principle.
Unfortunately, for many of the larger companies, it's just bullshit
propaganda fed to the population to make us support unregulated
capitalism. In actuality, the wealthy owners of these companies
are so obsessed with gouging even more money out of poor and
middle-class people, that they will do anything to *destroy*
competition, thus ensuring that the *worst* products, which can
only survive *without* competition, will take over the market.
Note that the richest 10% of the U.S. population owns 90% of the
wealth, leaving only 10% for the lower 90% of the population.
>Wipe the spittle off your monitor and _read_ the posts. Have an adult
>explain them to you. Take some business and economics classes when you
>get old enough. It is good business sense, and Microsoft has always
>had good business sense; such good business sense that they've snuffed
>out what competition they had. Certainly, Microsoft has done bad
>things, but it worked: they own the OS and office-suite markets, and
>the government's trial has basically fizzled out.
This is the "morality" of the thug: "Anything I do that benefits
me is good." This is why many wealthy American businessmen,
including the grandfather of our non-elected "President", financed
Adolf Hitler. It's why such businessmen used American military
force, subversion, and private money, to support death-squad
governments in dozens of Third World nations throughout the 20th
Century, murdering democratic politicians, union organizers, and
many millions of ordinary people, so that American corporations
could take the resources of these nations and use their people as
slave labor. See
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm
Whereas the morality that leads to successful human life is quite
different: "It is wrong to harm others."
Hopefully, the person hiding behind the pseudonym of "Dr. Archmonk"
will rethink his concept of right and wrong.
Michael P. Reed
> I have never purchased a computer with ANYTHING preloaded. If you are too
> lazy or incompetent to put your own computer together from OEM parts,
> then maybe you don't have any business owning a computer.
This is shear arrogance. Not everyone, read most people, has the time,
inclination, expertise, nor interest to fiddle around with installation of OSes
or building their own systems. Do expect the same of vcrs, televisions, and
other assorted electronics?
Michael P. Reed
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> <snip>
> >
> >How has the government trial 'fizzled-out'??
> >They haven't even finished yet.
> >
> They'll get a fine, maybe.. Big deal for a company that has in the
> neighborhood of $24 billion in liquid cash.
You do not know many lawyers do you? This was a big blow to Microsoft as was
the appelate court's upholding the finding of fact, and Microsoft knows it.
That is why they are appealing to the SCOTUS to have the Appelate Court's
decisision overturned (though BeOS has a better chance of a new edition than
M$ has of the SCOTUS reviewing their case let alone hearing it). This decision
just opened a Pandora's Box full of trial lawyers just drooling over the chance
to get at some of that $24 billion.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:6d5j7.3386$Fv3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >> on the same computer?
>
> Since when should it be any of Microsoft's fucking business whether the
> OEM wants to include another OS on a computer?
Suppose you made an Operating System. Suppose you sold it to an OEM, and
they advertised their computer as having your OS. Then, when the user boots
up, they're redirected to another OS (either intentionally, or through some
confusion on the users part). Then you get phone calls from them about the
other OS, asking why you're making such a piece of crap that won't run any
of their apps? You just spent millions in WATTS line costs just to hear
people complain about something the OEM did, and for you to explain that
it's not your OS, despite what the OEM vendor's materials seem to say.
Crap that OEM's pull are exactly what has caused much of this. Packard
Bells used to ship with this goofy shell that was so stupid it wasn't even
funny. It was buggy, crashed, and not very well designed. Most PB users
thought it was MS's product.
George Henry
: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
: Hash: SHA1
: On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 01:53:07 GMT, kd...@charlie.ebertlan.org (Charlie
: Ebert) wrote:
: <snip>
:>
:>WRONG DIPSHIT! I'm not buying the fucking vending machine, only the
:>coke!
:>
: If you can't have a rational discussion, without resorting to name
: calling, then that sure doesn't say much about your intelligence or
: maturity. I was not WRONG. What is said is perfectly true. You cannot
: sell coke and pepsi in the same vending machine.
wrong.. if the machine is leased from an indepentent you can sell whatever
you want.
--g
Rolo Tomasi
>Since when is it a secret that MS doesn't allow OEM's to ship two OS's on
>the same computer?
>
That's not the trade secret and you know it. The "trade secret" is
Microsoft's hardware vendor license. You did READ the article?
Galley_SimRacer
> Hey Galley, what's yer game?
> I have a copy of windows installed PURELY for gp2 gp3 and GPL, don't
> tell
> me your a " velcro the pedal down and turn left all day" type?
> Also a dab hand in a WRC or a brittish tourer:)
I happen to live "smack dab" in the middle of NASCAR country, but, as
everyone knows, "Real drivers don't drive in circles!" ;-)
I caught the last five laps of the road course NASAR ran on recently.
What a friggin' joke!
Judging by my nickname, I tend to prefer the sims, but will take an
aracde game as long as it's totally arcade (e.g. Gadget Racers for PS2)
and not half-assed (e.g. ANY of the Ridge Racer crap for PSone and PS2).
PC faves have been:
Viper Racing
SCGT
NFS: Porsche Unleashed
I checked out the demo of F1CS2K yesterday. Very impressive! I hope
the PS2 version of F1 2001 is as good.
PS2 faves:
GT3, duh!
Gadget Racers
4x4 EVO (not too bad)
LeMans 24 Hours (somewhat disappointing, but still decent)
looking forward to:
Lotus Challenge (PS2)
Supercar Street Challenge (PS2)
WSC (PC)
Motorhead 2 (PS2? if not, PC)
>
> Living is that moment when you exit the parabolica and take the
> lettering
> off your tyres against the armco:)
>
Hmmm. I'll have to try that someday! ;-)
GreyCloud
Hehehe... I can hear the drooling lawyers already dripping. When there's money to
be had
and they figure there is a good strong chance to get in on the action, they'll be
there.
Like one poster said 'It ain't over till the fat penguin sings'.
David Ness
>
[Snip of PGP Junk +]
>
> Putting a PC together isn't a daunting task ya know. A couple of books,
> and a little bit of practice and you can break free from the "bondage"
> that the pre-built computer manufacturers have you in.. Of course, if
> you'd rather remain ignorant / lazy, then you get what you deserve.
>
This is surely true, and if your time is worth a dollar or two/hour it is a
good strategy. If, however, your time is worth more than that, then remaining
`ignorant' of this stuff is probably just as wise as remaining ignorant of,
say, the process needed to brew your own beer or stomp your own grapes. All of
these things are doable, and learnable, but since my time is worth a shade more
than a dollar or two per hour, I'll let others do these jobs for me.
And I don't think exercising _that_ judgement makes me either ignorant or lazy.
[snip of more PGP junk]
Michael P. Reed
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> >You do not know many lawyers do you? This was a big blow to Microsoft
> >as was the appelate court's upholding the finding of fact, and Microsoft
> >knows it. That is why they are appealing to the SCOTUS to have the
> >Appelate Court's decisision overturned (though BeOS has a better chance
> >of a new edition than M$ has of the SCOTUS reviewing their case let
> >alone hearing it). This decision just opened a Pandora's Box full of
> >trial lawyers just drooling over the chance to get at some of that $24
> >billion.
>
> shit into XP.
Hmm. I've thought about that. It could mean that Bill is trying to get in as
much as possible before the axe falls, or he may simply have become so arrogant
that he actually thinks that he will get away with it, or he may be in denial
and refuses to believe that he has actually broken the law, got caught, was
tried, and is going to be "prosecuted" for his crimes. Historically, denial of
reality has led many a man to blunder egregiously. It does not neccessarily
follow that just because Microsoft is not worried there is no threat.
Personally, I do believe he is worried, at least somewhat (or his lawyers), or
else he would not be appealing to the SCOTUS. I would not be surprised if his
legal team advised him not to put in the hardware registration thingy only to
have him ignore their advice (here is where the arrogance comes in to play).
Charlie Ebert
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, kd...@charlie.ebertlan.org (Charlie Ebert) wrote:
>
>> WRONG DIPSHIT! I'm not buying the fucking vending machine, only the
>> coke! You BUY the COMPUTER! It doesn't dispense anything!
>You're completely missing the point, Chuck. No, you're not buying the
>vending machine, but did you think it grew there on its own? Somebody
>has to pay for it to be there. Generally, you buy or lease the vending
>machine from the soda company, and then someone from that company
>comes to refill it every so often. Do you really think that if you
>lease a vending machine from Coca-Cola, it'll have Pepsi or 7-Up in
>it? Don't be so naive. Yes, in a perfect world all the competing
>companies would get along in perfect harmony, and they'd all want you
>to buy the product you thought was best. But this isn't a perfect
>world, and every company wants you to buy only _their_ products.
>
Are we saying MS has to pay these PC vendors to be there???
This entire paragraph is full of shit!
>> > Personally, if I owned a copy, and had the clout, I wouldn't allow my
>> > competitors products to be sold near mine either. That's just good
>> > business sense.
>> And you'd be a TRAITOR to the FREE ENTRERPRISE SYSTEM.
>> We don't really have a FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM when it comes to
>> PC's, we have the SOVIET UNION in the form of Microsoft.
>Wipe the spittle off your monitor and _read_ the posts. Have an adult
>explain them to you. Take some business and economics classes when you
>get old enough. It is good business sense, and Microsoft has always
>had good business sense; such good business sense that they've snuffed
>out what competition they had. Certainly, Microsoft has done bad
>things, but it worked: they own the OS and office-suite markets, and
>the government's trial has basically fizzled out.
I did. You don't make any fucking sense!
Charlie
SteveCampbell
> SteveCampbell wrote:
Get legends !!!!!! ( same engine nascar4 is built on)
Modern F1 games all suck because modern F1 is pretty limp ( i mean come
ON!!! auto gears and traction control...is this the pinacle of competative
motorsport or a playstaion game).
All the nasser tracks can be played on legends, in tiny little F1
cars......michigan is fabulous.
I watched the most recent few CART races.......do you know if someone
drills holes in their heads before races or are they that daft naturally?
BTW check out a game called racer...cross platform windows/linux...and
getting there fast.
Do all the Euro games like Colin Mcrea Rally and ToCA Touring Cars make it
over there?
If not....you poor poor people:)
Terry Porter
> Beretta wrote:
>>
> [Snip of PGP Junk +]
>>
>> Putting a PC together isn't a daunting task ya know. A couple of books,
>> and a little bit of practice and you can break free from the "bondage"
>> that the pre-built computer manufacturers have you in.. Of course, if
>> you'd rather remain ignorant / lazy, then you get what you deserve.
>>
>
> This is surely true,
Then you agree.
> and if your time is worth a dollar or two/hour it is a
> good strategy.
It's also a good strategy if your time is worth $30 an hour, remember
you just agreed it was true.
> If, however, your time is worth more than that, then remaining
> `ignorant' of this stuff is probably just as wise as remaining ignorant of,
> say, the process needed to brew your own beer or stomp your own grapes.
Only if you're prepared to consume the same fare as the rest of the population
earning $2/hr, because they don't have the ability/resources to to do things for
themselves.
> All of
> these things are doable, and learnable, but since my time is worth a shade more
> than a dollar or two per hour, I'll let others do these jobs for me.
>
> And I don't think exercising _that_ judgement makes me either ignorant or lazy.
Thinking you're not ignorant or lazy, does not make it so.
If you have never built a pc from modules, then you are certainly ignorant
of how to do so.
--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
* Most people read Flatfish for a month, then killfile him *
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
Galley_SimRacer
> Get legends !!!!!! ( same engine nascar4 is built on)
> Modern F1 games all suck because modern F1 is pretty limp ( i mean
> come
> ON!!! auto gears and traction control...is this the pinacle of
> competative
> motorsport or a playstation game).
> All the nasser tracks can be played on legends, in tiny little F1
> cars......michigan is fabulous.
Sorry, you must be confused. I hate NASCAR!
>
> I watched the most recent few CART races.......do you know if someone
> drills holes in their heads before races or are they that daft
> naturally?
Dunno, don't get to watch it that often. Maybe next year on
Speedvision.
>
> BTW check out a game called racer...cross platform windows/linux...and
> getting there fast.
Crashed on my system.
>
> Do all the Euro games like Colin Mcrea Rally and ToCA Touring Cars
> make it
> over there?
Yeah they do. TOCA WTC was given the godawful name of "Jarrett &
Labonte Stock Car Racing"!
> If not....you poor poor people:)
>
>
>
Yeah, but we get to live in a land of strip malls! Culture and
history...who needs that stuff? ;-)
Jim Richardson
> "Flacco" <flac...@spambadtwilight-systems.com> wrote in message
> news:6d5j7.3386$Fv3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> >> Since when is it a secret that MS doesn't allow OEM's to ship two OS's
>> >> on the same computer?
>>
>> Since when should it be any of Microsoft's fucking business whether the
>> OEM wants to include another OS on a computer?
>
> Suppose you made an Operating System. Suppose you sold it to an OEM, and
> they advertised their computer as having your OS. Then, when the user boots
> up, they're redirected to another OS (either intentionally, or through some
> confusion on the users part). Then you get phone calls from them about the
> other OS, asking why you're making such a piece of crap that won't run any
> of their apps? You just spent millions in WATTS line costs just to hear
> people complain about something the OEM did, and for you to explain that
> it's not your OS, despite what the OEM vendor's materials seem to say.
"yeah, that's the ticket, <spin><spin><spin>
It was beos' fault. we just protecting the sucke^H^H^H^H
consumer from confusion... here. Talk to clippy."
>
> Crap that OEM's pull are exactly what has caused much of this. Packard
> Bells used to ship with this goofy shell that was so stupid it wasn't even
> funny. It was buggy, crashed, and not very well designed. Most PB users
> thought it was MS's product.
>
>
>
well, you can understand their confusion. A crappy, buggy piece of
software on a windows box? gee, how unusual.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
Cary L. Brown
> Your chances may happen sooner than you think!!!!
>
> There is a distinct possibility that Microsoft's tactics are going to come
> back to haunt them... There is a possibility that future updates to current
> versions of Windows will include "special" tools designed to begin to degrade
> or kill performance and functionality of the current customer base machines,
> in an attempt to convince them to upgrade to Windows XP Home Edition. Being a
> programmer, I know it is entirely possible to put stuff in there to
> surreptitiously damage or stop the software in ways to make it impossible to
> continue without a full clean reload. The average "Joe/Jane Customer" will
> more than likely just upgrade so they don't have to worry about it rather than
> fix what they have. I am grabbing the current updates to Windoz 95 and 98 and
> storing them in CD form. This way, I can open them up and scrutinize whats
> what, and save the valid stuff and toss out the spyware and other garbage.
> Rule of thumb lately is don't download much anymore patches and such from
> Microsoft. There is no real easy way to determine if it's a valid fix to a
> problem, or another way to sneak a bomb into your current software. IMHO.
The latest "Internet Explorer Security Update" causes these problems in Windows
98SE installation on AMD hardware, for instance. I went through it twice (the
second time was a test, just to confirm the problem). Thousand of people have
this problem. Upgrade to Window ME or Win2K and it's gone, of course...
Cary L. Brown
Your argument doesn't stand up.
First off, the shell you refer to with Packard Bell was called "Packard Bell
Navigator." Seems to me that anyone but a drooling moron would see that this
was Packard Bell's software. Of course, Packard Bell HARDWARE was also crap,
and most of the crashes the PB machines had were attributable to the third-rate
hardware. It's no surprise that Packard Bell is gone now but you can still find
dozens, probably hundreds, of "I hate Packard Bell" websites on the 'net.
Second, BeOS, Linux, etc, are not SHELLS, and a bootloader is not a SHELL
either.
Third, Microsoft doesn't have WATTS lines. They have pay-per-call lines... so
they would actually MAKE MONEY from getting these phone calls, which they could
then blow off by saying (after putting the user on hold for 10 minutes or so)
"I'm sorry, you'll have to contact <fill in the blank> about that. Have a nice
day... buh-bye."
Having a bootloader that asks "which do you want" at startup, and with Windows
as the default choice if you don't do anything... how does that "inconvenience"
Microsoft, except by letting people know that there IS an alternative, and
giving them a chance to try it out?
Erik Funkenbusch
news:3B8DBE99...@attglobal.net...
> Erik,
>
> Your argument doesn't stand up.
Your argument isn't well reasoned.
> First off, the shell you refer to with Packard Bell was called "Packard
Bell
> Navigator." Seems to me that anyone but a drooling moron would see that
this
> was Packard Bell's software.
You give users much more credit than you should. People just get stupid
when it comes to technology, they really do. Otherwise intelligent people
become "drooling morons" the second you introduce technology. They can't
figure out how to set their VCR's, or the clocks on their radios.
> Of course, Packard Bell HARDWARE was also crap,
> and most of the crashes the PB machines had were attributable to the
third-rate
> hardware. It's no surprise that Packard Bell is gone now but you can
still find
> dozens, probably hundreds, of "I hate Packard Bell" websites on the 'net.
Indeed.
> Second, BeOS, Linux, etc, are not SHELLS, and a bootloader is not a SHELL
> either.
The average user won't know the difference, and in fact will likely try to
load their windows software under BeOS.
> Third, Microsoft doesn't have WATTS lines. They have pay-per-call
lines... so
> they would actually MAKE MONEY from getting these phone calls, which they
could
> then blow off by saying (after putting the user on hold for 10 minutes or
so)
> "I'm sorry, you'll have to contact <fill in the blank> about that. Have a
nice
> day... buh-bye."
MS provides 800 numbers for 30 day support. They also have 800 numbers for
pay support, where they charge your credit card. The 900 line has gone the
way of the dodo.
> Having a bootloader that asks "which do you want" at startup, and with
Windows
> as the default choice if you don't do anything... how does that
"inconvenience"
> Microsoft, except by letting people know that there IS an alternative, and
> giving them a chance to try it out?
That's not how the bootloaders work. Lilo, for instance, tends to just give
you a stupid prompt.
Dr. Archmonk
> Hopefully, the person hiding behind the pseudonym of "Dr. Archmonk"
> will rethink his concept of right and wrong.
Rethink my concept of right and wrong?
I said Microsoft did bad things. I said that Microsoft has good
business practices---no, they're not "right"; they harm the market and
screw the customers---but they're effective. I don't condone or agree
with Microsoft's strong-arm resistance-is-futile tactics. I don't
agree with the "thug mentality."
How does this reflect on my concept of right and wrong?
And on what authority do you judge another's right and wrong?
(Disagreeing with your beliefs makes it wrong, yes?) Consider the
narrowmindedness of pronouncing another's [believed] opinion to be in
need of rethinking.
And btw, I'm not attempting to "hide." The email address is valid, for
instance. I post to MP3 newsgroups, and I use the 'nym to help avoid
possible legal entanglements. When posting my original message to this
thread I forgot to change the header back to my real name and email
address.
Joe User
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> >And it's illegal as hell if you're a monopoly. The rules are different
> >for monopolies, Beretta, for very good (and what should be obvious)
> >reasons.
>
> I'm not disputing that MS is a monopoly, but until you ARE a monopoly, it
> makes good business sense. And that is the very reason why MS, Pepsi,
> Coke, etc etc etc all do what they do.
The Coke/Pepsi analogy is false. When you see a Coke machine that only
dispenses Coke and Coke products, you are seeing a machine owned by your
local Coca-Cola bottling company. Same with Pepsi. Naturally they're not
going to allow competitors' soft drinks in their own machines.
When you see a vending machine that has Coke *and* Pepsi *and* RC Cola,
etc., you are seeing an independent vending machine, owned by none of the
soft drink companies.
Now, does Microsoft own the computers in CompUSA? If they did, then they
would have every right to disallow other OSes from being installed on them.
But they don't own them. They blackmail the real owners. Whether this is
good business sense for Microsoft remains to be seen. It's clearly bad
business for the computer makers not to be allowed to offer a wider variety
of products, but what can they do? They are under the thumb of a giant,
ruthless monopoly.
--
Joe User
Joe User
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:NRkj7.14490$x84.3...@ruti.visi.com...
> "Cary L. Brown" <cary...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:3B8DBE99...@attglobal.net...
> > Erik,
> Windows
> > as the default choice if you don't do anything... how does that
> "inconvenience"
> > Microsoft, except by letting people know that there IS an alternative,
and
> > giving them a chance to try it out?
>
> That's not how the bootloaders work. Lilo, for instance, tends to just
give
> you a stupid prompt.
Lilo on my machine gives me two choices: Windows or Linux. Windows is
highlighted to begin with, and if I do nothing for a few seconds, Windows
will boot up. I have to take action (by moving the highlight bar down to
Linux) in order to bring up Linux.
I didn't do anything to make it this way -- this is how it was installed
(by Redhat 7.1).
So, I guess this IS how bootloaders work, eh?
--
Joe User
Tom Wilson
> "Cary L. Brown" <cary...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:3B8DBE99...@attglobal.net...
<snip>
>> Having a bootloader that asks "which do you want" at startup, and with
> Windows
>> as the default choice if you don't do anything... how does that
> "inconvenience"
>> Microsoft, except by letting people know that there IS an alternative,
>> and giving them a chance to try it out?
>
> That's not how the bootloaders work. Lilo, for instance, tends to just
> give you a stupid prompt.
Recent lilo versions give a menu of choices, ala GRUB, and a default
timeout to the default choice (which can easily be changed). In addition,
passwords can be assigned for each option present.
The "Stupid Prompt" disappeared a few versions back.
--
Tom Wilson
Registration #194021 - http:\counter.li.org
There is no royal road to geometry.
-- Euclid
SteveCampbell
> Yeah, but we get to live in a land of strip malls! Culture and
> history...who needs that stuff? ;-)
LOL
Erik Funkenbusch
news:MBoj7.131650$k7.33...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
You're a new user with no idea about computers. You press the power button,
you see a nice pretty graphic (most OEM's hide the BIOS POST information
these days because it confuses users) then you see
1: Windows
2: Linux
You sit and stare at it, with no idea what it wants or what its asking for
or what it means. How is that intuitive?
Chris
>You're a new user with no idea about computers. You press the power button,
>you see a nice pretty graphic (most OEM's hide the BIOS POST information
>these days because it confuses users) then you see
>
>1: Windows
>2: Linux
>
>You sit and stare at it, with no idea what it wants or what its asking for
>or what it means. How is that intuitive?
Uh, Beavis, I think you can modify /boot/message and lilo.conf
so that a nice lonnnnnnnnnng explanation comes up.
Does bring up a good point though... if people aren't educated
to the alternatives to Windows, they will be mystified when
they see signs of them.
Interesting aside... the other day, I asked my wife if she
knew what Windows XP was. I was very surprised when she
said she had no idea.
Her lab still uses 98.
Chris
Joe User
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >But they don't own them. They blackmail the real owners. Whether this
> >is good business sense for Microsoft remains to be seen. It's clearly
> >bad
> >business for the computer makers not to be allowed to offer a wider
> >variety of products, but what can they do? They are under the thumb of
> >a giant, ruthless monopoly.
>
> company on the planet. Of course it made good business sense. They
> squashed almost all of the competition.
True. It has in the past been incredibly profitable for Microsoft.
>
> Bad business for computer makers? Yah, that explains all the record
> earnings by Dell, Compaq, Gateway, etc over the last 3 or 4 years. Yah,
> they were really suffering by not being allowed to sell more than one OS.
Gateway is dying, haven't you heard?
Anyway, you seem to be having trouble understanding the issues. It is
obviously not good for a business if they are prevented from offering
products their customers might want.
> Once again I am NOT defending MS.
Clearly you are defending MS. You made a false analogy with Coke and Pepsi
in order to defend Microsoft's despicable practices, and you ignore it when
its pointed out to you.
You've defended them since you first started posting under this name. What
I don't understand is why you want people to think you're *not* defending
them. Are you trying to give the impression that you're an objective
observer or something?
--
Joe User
Joe User
You're the same user with no idea about computers. You press the power
button, and after staring at a "Microsoft Windows" logo for a bit, you see a
screen with little square pictures on the left hand side. They have
captions like "Recycle Bin," "Network Neighborhood," "My Documents," "My
Computer," etc.
Across the bottom of the screen are even smaller square pictures with NO
captions. There is one little picture that says "Start" on it. "Start"???
Didn't you just start the thing?
Come on, Eric. *NONE* of this is intuitive, in spite of Microsoft's and
Apple's protests to the contrary.
Even so, simpler is almost always better. Even someone with absolutely zero
knowledge about computers will be able to guess that he's being offered a
choice when he sees:
1. Windows
2. Linux
And STILL, even if he does NOT realize he's being given a choice, he will
STILL get Windows by doing nothing for a few seconds.
Let's go over that again, since your objection seems to be that the clueless
newbie won't understand the opening Lilo screen.
If he doesn't understand he's being offered a choice, he'll get Windows by
default. If he DOES understand, then he'll get to choose every time he
boots up. If he likes Windows better, he'll choose that more often. He
might even get rid of Linux altogether, eventually.
Or vice versa. I think it's that vice versa possibility that motivates
Microsoft into blackmailing OEMs. Your issue of "more support calls" is
transparent and weak. The real motivation is obvious.
You point at a deer and call it a horse.
--
Joe User
Scott Craver
>
>You're a new user with no idea about computers. You press the power button,
>you see a nice pretty graphic (most OEM's hide the BIOS POST information
>these days because it confuses users) then you see
>
>1: Windows
>2: Linux
>
>You sit and stare at it, with no idea what it wants or what its asking for
>or what it means.
Then, after 10 seconds, Windows boots automatically.
Honestly, it's hard to argue that this kind of setup is confusing,
unless the customer is so clueless that everything the computer
displays is confusing, including the Windows desktop.
Keep in mind also that companies would probably not install both
OSs except on request. That would decrease even further the
probability of someone being confused by being given a choice.
>How is that intuitive?
Numbered multiple choice lists are actually very intuitive.
In the days of 8 bit computers, programs for making signs
and banners and greeting cards (Print Shop, Print Master)
did everything in step-by-step multiple choice format.
It was a very simple interface with which many non-computer
people felt quite comfortable, even back in the 80s.
Today's programs for doing the same have never returned to
that level of ease of use. They lost the sequential format.
Either they have a "Wizard" that makes most of the design
decisions for you, and barfs up a completed birthday card
that causes you to barf back; or the software dumps you on
to a blank canvas with no instructions.
Scott
billwg
>
>
> Gateway is dying, haven't you heard?
>
dying because they have a crappy marketing model and even crappier customer
service to go with it. It is otherwise true that the major OEMs prospered
mightily under the aegis of Microsoft and the same-old, same-old consistency
of Windows from OEM to OEM that made Windows a critical customer
expectation. The OEMs had to differentiate on price and quality of the
hardware and service as well as their innovations in marketing. Gateway
never made to transition to on-line ordering in the fine style that Dell
pioneered. Gateway went from mail order to catalog store order 10 years
after even Sears abandoned the concept as passé. And that's why Gateway is
dying.
GreyCloud
It would be no different than trying to read hieroglyphics.
Scott Craver
>>
>But Gateway is not dying because they can't dual-boot BeOS!
Correct.
> It is otherwise true that the major OEMs prospered mightily under
> the aegis of Microsoft
But isn't this the same error? OEMs did not prosper
_because_ of Microsoft. If everyone switched over to OS/2
when it came out (guffaw) OEMs would still be selling
computers and making money.
For OEMs, installing Windows on their machines was like
paying taxes: they had to in order to "prosper mightily,"
simply because they had to in order to stay in business.
That doesn't make either the cause of their prosperity.
Also, there is no denying that OEMs would rather not be
restricted. If they could safely escape those restrictions
they would have, because it could only help to have more
control over their own product (as long as they could
still redirect tech support calls to the OS vendor.)
Scott
Joe User
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I've used this handle on USENET since 1993.
Oops, sorry. Since I started posting in cola a few weeks ago, this
newsgroup has consumed my usenet time, and I don't have the habit of looking
at the list of newsgroups in the header. Yours is a new name to me, and I
didn't notice that this cola thread is cross-posted to several other
newsgroups (most cola threads aren't). My mistake.
--
Joe User
Mark S Bilk
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, ma...@cosmicpenguin.com (Mark S Bilk) wrote:
>
>> Hopefully, the person hiding behind the pseudonym of "Dr. Archmonk"
>> will rethink his concept of right and wrong.
>
>Rethink my concept of right and wrong?
This is what "Dr. Archmonk" wrote in response to someone who
disagreed with Microsoft's secret, coercive license:
>>>Wipe the spittle off your monitor and _read_ the posts. Have
>>>an adult explain them to you. Take some business and economics
>>>classes when you get old enough. It is good business sense,
>>>and Microsoft has always had good business sense; such good
>>>business sense that they've snuffed out what competition they
>>>had. Certainly, Microsoft has done bad things, but it worked:
>>>they own the OS and office-suite markets, and the government's
>>>trial has basically fizzled out.
The three personal insults in that paragraph, directed against the
person who wrote in opposition to Microsoft, and the descripion of
Microsoft's tactics as "good" three times, indicate strong support
for the company's actions. Where the word "bad" appears, it's
immediately followed by a list of three MS successes attributed to
the "bad" behavior, with the apparent meaning that the writer
considers the "bad" to have been justified.
>How does this reflect on my concept of right and wrong?
By any normal interpretation, that paragraph strongly supports the
actions of Microsoft's bosses, which follow the principle of harm-
ing others in order to benefit oneself. In particular, the emo-
tional components (the insults) indicate that the author strongly
agrees with what he's written, and thus believes in that principle.
>I said Microsoft did bad things. I said that Microsoft has good
>business practices---no, they're not "right"; they harm the market and
>screw the customers---but they're effective. I don't condone or agree
>with Microsoft's strong-arm resistance-is-futile tactics. I don't
>agree with the "thug mentality."
If this material had been worked into the paragraph, and the word
"good" had been replaced with, e.g., "unfortunately effective",
and the insults had been removed, then the strong implication that
the author agrees with the morality of the thug would not have been
present.
>And on what authority do you judge another's right and wrong?
>(Disagreeing with your beliefs makes it wrong, yes?) Consider the
>narrowmindedness of pronouncing another's [believed] opinion to be in
>need of rethinking.
The belief that it's OK to harm others is the scourge of our
species and our planet. One result of it was the murder of well
over 100,000,000 people in the last century in "wars", almost all
motivated by the same greed for money shown by Microsoft. World
War II was created by the wealthy capitalists who financed Hitler,
in order to stop the support of socialism and trade unions by the
Soviet Union. 70% of the money for Hitler's military machine came
from wealthy conservative American businessmen.
Anyone who believes in or advocates harming others must be
challenged promptly and publicly if we are to have any hope of
survival. There are still enough nuclear weapons to sterilize
most of the planet; it's probable that a virus could be developed
right now that would kill every human being in existence; the
ecological disasters caused by rampant greed -- global warming and
overpopulation -- will merely kill most of our species.
One does not need any authority to challenge this monstrous system
of anti-morality, only the ability to open one's eyes and mind,
and see reality as it actually is.
>And btw, I'm not attempting to "hide." The email address is valid, for
>instance. I post to MP3 newsgroups, and I use the 'nym to help avoid
>possible legal entanglements. When posting my original message to this
>thread I forgot to change the header back to my real name and email
>address.
So who are you?
Craig Kelley
> You're a new user with no idea about computers. You press the power button,
> you see a nice pretty graphic (most OEM's hide the BIOS POST information
> these days because it confuses users) then you see
>
> 1: Windows
> 2: Linux
>
> You sit and stare at it, with no idea what it wants or what its asking for
> or what it means. How is that intuitive?
About as intuative as the 'Windows didn't finish starting last time'
screen (ie, 'safe mode', 'safe mode with networking', etc. etc.);
except that if you stare at it for all of 5 seconds, at least the LILO
screen goes away and boots up the default OS.
Of course, I'm sure you can come up with some other excuse as to why
Microsoft had to ruin all multi-OS bootloaders with Windows XP; when
incompetent "open sores" programmers for FreeBSD, Linux and BeOS have
no such problems with including Windows in their bootloaders.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
Peter Hayes
<...>
> Microsoft's practices may suck, and they DO stifle competition.... BUT,
> they make GREAT business sense.
The only reason Microsoft got 95+% of the desktop market is because IBM handed
it to them on a plate.
Until then, Microsoft was a small outfit selling programming languages, so
much so that when IBM came calling Gates had to run out and buy an OS.
Oh, and the Coke/Pepsi analogy is false - to be relevent the customer
would have to be offered Windows or Linux in a free choice environment.
Peter
Scott Craver
>In message <vgipotk8gh5pdhvc7...@4ax.com>, Beretta wrote:
>
><...>
>
>it to them on a plate.
Well, yes and no. One can always point to some lucky break or
screwup that helped lead to Microsoft's dominance. IBM asking for
an OS and being slow on the uptake, Steve Jobs agreeing to let MS
develop early Mac software.
However, if you took away those lucky breaks you'd just have other
lucky breaks. There are always opporunities. What made MS dominant
was the quick and shrewd manner in which the Billgate utilized those
opportunities.
>Oh, and the Coke/Pepsi analogy is false - to be relevent the customer
>would have to be offered Windows or Linux in a free choice environment.
Right; and it clearly isn't good business sense if it ends up
as a major point in the US-vs-Microsoft findings of fact.
>Peter
Scott
T. Max Devlin
>According to the article quoted below, Microsoft has used a secret
>vendor license to prevent companies from selling computers having
>both MS-Windows and another operating system pre-installed, and
>allowing the user to boot either OS.
Not secret so much as undisclosed. Their existence has been known about
for several years.
>This has (nearly) killed the
>BeOS operating system commercially, and has greatly slowed the
>acceptance of GNU/Linux, because it's much easier to use an
>operating system that's already installed and functioning than it
>is to install it yourself. (For more info on the fate of BeOS,
>see the Be newsgroups in this article's header.)
It has destroyed (entirely) the BeOS operating system commercially, and
has prevented (almost entirely) the acceptance of GNU/Linux.
Hope you don't mind the corrections. I appreciate your time.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
T. Max Devlin
11:02:28 -0500;
>the same computer?
Since they were covered by Non-Disclosure Agreements. Which is to say
they have always been secret, and still are, except for the fact that
everybody knows about them, now.
T. Max Devlin
>news:3B8DBE99...@attglobal.net...
>> Erik,
>>
>> Your argument doesn't stand up.
>
>Your argument isn't well reasoned.
You wish.
>> First off, the shell you refer to with Packard Bell was called "Packard Bell
>> Navigator." Seems to me that anyone but a drooling moron would see that
>this
>> was Packard Bell's software.
>
>You give users much more credit than you should.[...]
We are aware of both your opinion and Microsoft's. Theirs is dishonest,
is yours? Or are you just really stupid?
Doesn't it ever get annoying that you have to keep making reference to
the stupidity of the customer in order to explain Microsoft's actions?
Don't you ever catch on?
Which is it, Erik? Are you stupid, or are you dishonest? You can
invent a third excuse if you want, but unless it is both honest and
intelligently reasonable, I would have to insist it is simply an
argument for one or the other, stupid or dishonest. Which is it?
[...]
>Indeed.
>
>> Second, BeOS, Linux, etc, are not SHELLS, and a bootloader is not a SHELL
>> either.
>
>The average user won't know the difference, and in fact will likely try to
>load their windows software under BeOS.
BeOS? Are you kidding? There's, what, maybe a couple thousand people
using this in the entire world?
[...]
>MS provides 800 numbers for 30 day support. They also have 800 numbers for
>pay support, where they charge your credit card. The 900 line has gone the
>way of the dodo.
I've snipped the context because this isn't a reply to the point being
made, anyway, this prattling on about dodos.
[...]
>That's not how the bootloaders work. Lilo, for instance, tends to just give
>you a stupid prompt.
It doesn't matter how the bootloaders work; the issue is why they don't
work with Windows.
T. Max Devlin
>news:6d5j7.3386$Fv3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> >> on the same computer?
>>
>> OEM wants to include another OS on a computer?
>
>Suppose you made an Operating System. Suppose you sold it to an OEM, and
>they advertised their computer as having your OS.
I'm wondering then why MS has contracts which prevent OEMs from
advertising other OSes, and even from listing Windows as a feature on
their products in advertisements, other than to foster the impression
that it is assumed that all PCs have Windows? Regardless, I am
interrupting...
>Then, when the user boots
>up, they're redirected to another OS (either intentionally, or through some
>confusion on the users part).
If confusion is sufficient to redirect the user, shouldn't we presume
that everything they do is by 'redirection'? But, again, I am
interrupting...
>Then you get phone calls from them about the
>other OS, asking why you're making such a piece of crap that won't run any
>of their apps?
What about the other OS people, getting phone calls about your OS not
running their apps?
>You just spent millions in WATTS line costs just to hear
>people complain about something the OEM did, and for you to explain that
>it's not your OS, despite what the OEM vendor's materials seem to say.
And again your example seems the emptiest of rhetoric, so profoundly
stupid and meaningless as to almost demand that we presume you are being
paid to lie, when we consider that Microsoft does not provide any
support for their OS except at a profit (regardless of premise), and
requires OEMs to in fact do all of their own first line support.
>Crap that OEM's pull are exactly what has caused much of this. Packard
>Bells used to ship with this goofy shell that was so stupid it wasn't even
>funny. It was buggy, crashed, and not very well designed. Most PB users
>thought it was MS's product.
Well, they used that excuse when they forced OEMs to do their support
for them to begin with, while still restricting the OEMs from being able
to do this 'stupid stuff' you're talking about. Having used up that lie
twice already, do you really think it will fly a third time?
But you're a sock puppet, I guess, so you can't help but do anything but
send it up the flagpole and hope it spreads enough FUD to be worth the
effort.
I'm faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, it seems incomprehensibly
preposterous that you could say such stupid things by accident, that you
must be a real astroturfer rather than a mere sock puppet loser. Since
you have so pointedly refused to state that you are not an astroturfer,
and from the way you start spinning and twisting about profusely in
pretending to deny it without doing so when the question comes up, it is
almost foolish to presume that you are not simply an astroturfer. Thus
my dilemma, because it seems preposterous that anything but private
motivations could cause anyone to embarrass themselves so thoroughly for
so long defending Microsoft, and it is unlikely that MS would bother
trying to FUD COLA for any serious effect.
So one the one hand, you are a professional slime-bucket without any
ethics or integrity, and on the other you are just profoundly stupid.
It seems these are the only choices which match all the facts I have.
I wonder if you could tell me which it is, to resolve my dilemma, or try
to explain what it is that I'm missing that would explain your
statements in any other way?
T. Max Devlin
>SteveCampbell wrote:
>> And yeah Erik Funkenbusch Did speak unto the masses thusly:
>>
>>> Since when is it a secret that MS doesn't allow OEM's to ship two
>> OS's on
>>> the same computer?
>>>
>> "And in other news, tonightcoca-cola announced that no store may sell
>> pepsi
>> and still be allowed to sell coke"
>>
>If you've ever read Roger Enrico's book "The Other Guy Blinked - how
>Pepsi won the cola wars", you would know that stuff like that does go on
>to some extent in the fountain business.
And if you noticed that Coke still rules the industry, you'd know to
take such explanations with a grain of salt.
>This is the same company that
>was caught bribing Soviet officials trying to get Coke sold in the
>U.S.S.R.
When in Rome...
T. Max Devlin
>> I am well aware of that. But what constitutes a monopoly? 90%? 95%? 80%?
>> I'm not disputing that MS is a monopoly, but until you ARE a monopoly, it
>> makes good business sense. And that is the very reason why MS, Pepsi,
>> Coke, etc etc etc all do what they do.
>
>The Coke/Pepsi analogy is false.
So obviously false, in fact, that it makes the whole position of this
'Beretta' troll painfully empty of intellectual merit. The very phrase
"why MS, Pepsi, Coke, etc..." should be a red-flag to anyone with half a
brain that the author of the claim does not have one, and is in fact a
'nit wit'.
>When you see a Coke machine that only
>dispenses Coke and Coke products, you are seeing a machine owned by your
>local Coca-Cola bottling company. Same with Pepsi.
Now, how many people have seen a Coke and a Pepsi machine near each
other; raise your cyber-hands?
>Naturally they're not
>going to allow competitors' soft drinks in their own machines.
Not 'naturally', no; if there were money to be made, they would. But
there isn't, so you are right, they don't. They would and they could,
though, if you could show them how to make a product. Soft drink
manufacturers are under no delusions that there aren't suitable
substitutes for their flavors, even if they are only semi-replicatable.
>When you see a vending machine that has Coke *and* Pepsi *and* RC Cola,
>etc., you are seeing an independent vending machine, owned by none of the
>soft drink companies.
Also known as a 'retailer' or 'store'.
>Now, does Microsoft own the computers in CompUSA? If they did, then they
>would have every right to disallow other OSes from being installed on them.
>But they don't own them. They blackmail the real owners. Whether this is
>good business sense for Microsoft remains to be seen.
I'm afraid I must insist that the phrase 'good business sense' precludes
acting illegally, and we have already seen that MS does so.
>It's clearly bad
>business for the computer makers not to be allowed to offer a wider variety
>of products, but what can they do? They are under the thumb of a giant,
>ruthless monopoly.
The terms 'giant' and 'ruthless' are entirely redundant in that last
sentence, BTW.
Sorry I'm such a prick, but if you aren't careful with words, people
call you a liar, whether you're being honest or not.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
Galley_SimRacer
> Now, how many people have seen a Coke and a Pepsi machine near each
> other; raise your cyber-hands?
>
Wal-Mart has all three of the major colas in their own machines, and
many convenience stores have dispensers for both Coke and Pepsi. Of
course it didn't used to be that way.
--
"Life is what you experience between racing games"
Galley
Dr. Archmonk
(arch...@newsguy.com). This thread has already spawned far too many
off-topic sub-threads. This will be my last post on the matter.
Indeed, assuming I remember to change my posting settings next time,
it'll be the last post to this group under this 'nym.
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, ma...@cosmicpenguin.com (Mark S Bilk) wrote:
> The three personal insults in that paragraph, directed against the
> person who wrote in opposition to Microsoft, and the descripion of
> Microsoft's tactics as "good" three times, indicate strong support
> for the company's actions.
No... they were "personal insults"; i.e. to the *person*, not to the
person's ideas. It was in response to the language and irrationality
in the postings by "Charlie Ebert." Go back and read some of his fine
works. So Chuck disagrees with Microsoft's practices, good, but he
should find a more intelligent and mature way to express it.
> By any normal interpretation, that paragraph ...
Ah yes, the "I am the world" / "My opinion is the correct one"
mentality again. Not that it's uncommon. *Everything* is subject to
interpretation, and fifty people will interpret the same thing in 46
different ways. So, which one of them is "normal"?
> The belief that it's OK to harm others is the scourge of our
> species and our planet. ... There are still enough nuclear weapons
> to sterilize most of the planet; it's probable that a virus could
> be developed right now that would kill every human being in
> existence; the ecological disasters caused by rampant greed --
> global warming and overpopulation -- will merely kill most of
> our species.
Wow. The irrelevancy is astounding. (And the zealotry is somewhat
frightening.) Or is Microsoft working on nuclear and/or biological
weapons? But thanks for a good chuckle.
Get this: I agree with you. I think Microsoft's business practices are
immoral. I don't believe it's okay to harm others (except perhaps in
defense of yourself or of those weaker or more vulnerable than you). I
even agree that Charlie had an "important insight" ("We don't really
have a FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM when it comes to PC's, we have the
SOVIET UNION in the form of Microsoft.") in the post of his I
followed-up to. My problem was with his lack of eloquence and
intelligence. So what's your problem with me?
> One does not need any authority to challenge this monstrous system
> of anti-morality, only the ability to open one's eyes and mind,
> and see reality as it actually is.
You seem pretty closed-minded, for advocating the opening of one's
mind.
> > And btw, I'm not attempting to "hide."
> So who are you?
Obviously, answering that would defeat having used the 'nym anywhere.
But I'll tell you my name is William; call me Bill.
Dr. Archmonk
>I'm afraid I must insist that the phrase 'good business sense' precludes
>acting illegally, and we have already seen that MS does so.
That's a damn good point. Indeed, it's not good business sense to do
things that could get the business in legal trouble.
So, with "good business sense" disqualified, how should we describe
Microsoft's actions? "Acting in Microsoft's interest"? Maybe not. I'm
partial to "resistance is futile, you will be assimiliated" but it's
kind of wordy. "RIFYWBA"?
Erik Funkenbusch
news:b1g0pt8ff4or6b24v...@4ax.com...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 30 Aug 2001
> >"Cary L. Brown" <cary...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> >news:3B8DBE99...@attglobal.net...
> >> Erik,
> >>
> >> Your argument doesn't stand up.
> >
> >Your argument isn't well reasoned.
>
> You wish.
>
> >> First off, the shell you refer to with Packard Bell was called "Packard
Bell
> >> Navigator." Seems to me that anyone but a drooling moron would see
that
> >this
> >> was Packard Bell's software.
> >
> >You give users much more credit than you should.[...]
>
> We are aware of both your opinion and Microsoft's. Theirs is dishonest,
> is yours? Or are you just really stupid?
Are you going to sit there and say that there aren't stupid users? The fact
that Linux caters to more intelligent users doesn't diminish the need for an
OS which supports stupid ones. No, of course all users are not stupid, or
ignorant, or whatever, but many are. And if you want to be successful, you
have to support the lowest common denominator.
If you assume that all users are intelligent or knowledgable, then you
alienate a huge percentage of your market. All it takes is to work tech
support for 1 hour and your opinion will change.
> Doesn't it ever get annoying that you have to keep making reference to
> the stupidity of the customer in order to explain Microsoft's actions?
> Don't you ever catch on?
Doesn't it ever get annoying that your pet OS doesn't seem to be making
inroads in the class of user that tends to spend the most on technology, and
thus make businesses that create that technology more profitable?
> Which is it, Erik? Are you stupid, or are you dishonest? You can
> invent a third excuse if you want, but unless it is both honest and
> intelligently reasonable, I would have to insist it is simply an
> argument for one or the other, stupid or dishonest. Which is it?
I find your tactics highly dishonest. You snipped away all the context of
my statement. *ANYONE* that has worked tech support can testify that
otherwise intelligent people get reduced to "drooling morons" whenever
technology is concerned. They're scared of it, and don't want to have
anything more to do with it than they have to.
> [...]
> >Indeed.
> >
> >> Second, BeOS, Linux, etc, are not SHELLS, and a bootloader is not a
SHELL
> >> either.
> >
> >The average user won't know the difference, and in fact will likely try
to
> >load their windows software under BeOS.
>
> BeOS? Are you kidding? There's, what, maybe a couple thousand people
> using this in the entire world?
We're talking about machines which would come pre-loaded with BeOS.
Specifically, Hitachi's systems.
> >MS provides 800 numbers for 30 day support. They also have 800 numbers
for
> >pay support, where they charge your credit card. The 900 line has gone
the
> >way of the dodo.
>
> I've snipped the context because this isn't a reply to the point being
> made, anyway, this prattling on about dodos.
No, you snip the context to be dishonest. Cary was suggesting that all
support calls to MS are on "Pay per call lines" and not WATTS lines.
[...]
> >That's not how the bootloaders work. Lilo, for instance, tends to just
give
> >you a stupid prompt.
>
> It doesn't matter how the bootloaders work; the issue is why they don't
> work with Windows.
They do work with Windows.
Carl Robson
"Scott Craver" <sacr...@ivy.ee.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:9mh6fp$255$1...@cnn.Princeton.EDU...
> Eugenia Loli-Queru <el...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> That doesn't explain how it's "a secret" as the title says.
> >
> >That shitty "Trade License" was and IS a trade secret for Microsoft. Scot
> >and JLG decided to make it known now though instead of 3-4 years ago.
> >Probably JLG is not afraid anymore to talk about it,
>
> Actually, JLG spoke a great length about these MS license
> restrictions, years ago. In fact, he did so in his classic,
> flamboyant manner: he once publicly declared that if any
> OEM was brave enough to add BeOS to their boxes, he'd let
> them do so for free. Was that 1999, or 1998? I think 1999.
>
I remember that at the time of release 4 or there abouts.
--
Carl Robson
Ed Allen
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>Are you going to sit there and say that there aren't stupid users? The fact
>that Linux caters to more intelligent users doesn't diminish the need for an
>OS which supports stupid ones. No, of course all users are not stupid, or
>ignorant, or whatever, but many are. And if you want to be successful, you
>have to support the lowest common denominator.
>
failure" is monopoly thinking Erik.
No single product ever does that without monopoly being involved.
Some people don't like the color. Others want it to be "made in the
USA" and "environmentally friendly".
Whatever their reasons no single product, not even drugs, has ever
been able to saturate a market that is free. and the drug market is
not exactly free but it offers more choices than MS allows in the PC
market. How can that be ?
Erik Funkenbusch
news:itkrm9...@allenhome.kc.rr.com...
> In article <lgbk7.16354$x84.4...@ruti.visi.com>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
> >
> >Are you going to sit there and say that there aren't stupid users? The
fact
> >that Linux caters to more intelligent users doesn't diminish the need for
an
> >OS which supports stupid ones. No, of course all users are not stupid,
or
> >ignorant, or whatever, but many are. And if you want to be successful,
you
> >have to support the lowest common denominator.
> >
> The "single product must fit at least 75% of the market or it is a
> failure" is monopoly thinking Erik.
No it's not. It's competitive thinking. Appealing to 100% of the market
doesn't mean you have 100% of the market.
> No single product ever does that without monopoly being involved.
Really? Then explain your typical VCR? They have added the ability to
auto-set the clocks from Public television time signals, VCR+ so users don't
have to know how to program it, and idiot proof buttons. You think all this
is because Sony or Panasonic have a monopoly on the VCR market?
Trying to appeal to the entire market is entirely different from being a
monopoly.
> Some people don't like the color. Others want it to be "made in the
> USA" and "environmentally friendly".
What does that have to do with trying to appeal that market?
> Whatever their reasons no single product, not even drugs, has ever
> been able to saturate a market that is free. and the drug market is
> not exactly free but it offers more choices than MS allows in the PC
> market. How can that be ?
Who said anything about saturating the market? I said appealing to that
market.
billwg
> > It is otherwise true that the major OEMs prospered mightily under
> > the aegis of Microsoft
>
> But isn't this the same error? OEMs did not prosper
> _because_ of Microsoft. If everyone switched over to OS/2
> when it came out (guffaw) OEMs would still be selling
> computers and making money.
>
It can be argued that Microsoft's insistence on a specific presentation of
Windows and their extensive developement of Windows in opposition to OS/2 is
what made the market for Wintel machines. If they had allowed a fragmented
effort, it is difficult to say what might have happened any differently, but
it is a fact that Wintel won out over OS/2 in spite of a massive promotion
by IBM to offer the PS/2 hardware, microchannel architecture, and OS/2 as a
Big Blue endorsed package.
IBM was trying to recapture ownership of the i386 PC market and it is not
very likely that they would have been very accommodating to the cloners with
OS/2 support and pricing when they were not very accomodating with
microchannel support and pricing. Plus the OEMs were surely reluctant to
aid IBM with OS/2 money when they were competing on the hardware front. I'm
sure we would have had a microchannel bias in OS2 greater than what was
already there if the OEMs were forced to use OS/2 because of a non-entry by
Microsoft Windows.
But the bottom line is that Microsoft was in charge and they didn't screw it
up. Very few other companies could have been in charge, either. But in any
case, it is fair for Microsoft to control their product's presentation if
they can. Because of the extreme popularity of Windows, they could.
> For OEMs, installing Windows on their machines was like
> paying taxes: they had to in order to "prosper mightily,"
> simply because they had to in order to stay in business.
> That doesn't make either the cause of their prosperity.
>
Microsoft provided the opportunity for success in the Wintel environment.
To get into that business, an intel-based computer supplier had to add
Windows to their product. It is more of an entry fee collected ahead of the
decision to enter than a tax assessed on any possible profit. An OEM could
choose to be in some other business, such as DOS clones or GeOS, but none
were as attractive as Windows.
> Also, there is no denying that OEMs would rather not be
> restricted. If they could safely escape those restrictions
> they would have, because it could only help to have more
> control over their own product (as long as they could
> still redirect tech support calls to the OS vendor.)
>
It's hard to see what that means. An OEM is only shackled to the Windows
OEM rules by the OEM price. They share in the profits of Windows because
they get a huge discount from retail because of the agreement to maintain
the appearance of Windows per the Microsoft line. If the OEM saw a big
opportunity in offering a highly differentiated product, the OEM could
simply purchase the Windows product in some high-volume retail mode, as many
system developers do and resell the value-added package for what it was
worth. That the OEMs do not do so is probably because they see themselves
as mass marketers and not specialty suppliers. Having more control
translates into paying more money and they could do that, but obviously do
not see how they can gain enough to recover the costs, otherwise they would
do it.
John Saunders
news:lifk7.21188$aZ.48...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Thanks for the memories!
Do you know whether OS/2 ever supported EISA (the OEM answer to
Microchannel)?
--
John Saunders
j...@ma.ultranet.com
Ed Allen
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>"Ed Allen" <eal...@allenhome.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:itkrm9...@allenhome.kc.rr.com...
>> In article <lgbk7.16354$x84.4...@ruti.visi.com>,
>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Are you going to sit there and say that there aren't stupid users? The
>fact
>> >that Linux caters to more intelligent users doesn't diminish the need for
>an
>> >OS which supports stupid ones. No, of course all users are not stupid,
>or
>> >ignorant, or whatever, but many are. And if you want to be successful,
>you
>> >have to support the lowest common denominator.
>> >
>> The "single product must fit at least 75% of the market or it is a
>> failure" is monopoly thinking Erik.
>
>No it's not. It's competitive thinking. Appealing to 100% of the market
>doesn't mean you have 100% of the market.
>
monopoly does not require 100%.
Your attempt at disinformation is feeble. You should really get some
updated material.
>> No single product ever does that without monopoly being involved.
>
>Really? Then explain your typical VCR? They have added the ability to
>auto-set the clocks from Public television time signals, VCR+ so users don't
>have to know how to program it, and idiot proof buttons. You think all this
>is because Sony or Panasonic have a monopoly on the VCR market?
>
Are you claiming that you know of a VCR maker with 75% or more
market share ?
Or are you attempting to claim that all VCRs are "a single product"
made by different companies ?
Changing the subject is avoiding the question. Which is, "What
single product gets 75% of the populace to buy it without monopoly
being involved" ?
>Trying to appeal to the entire market is entirely different from being a
>monopoly.
>
Desiring to is not a crime. Forcing people to accept your product
because they have no economically viable alternative is illegal and
the *only* way that 75% of people would accept a single product is
by having no choice.
>> Some people don't like the color. Others want it to be "made in the
>> USA" and "environmentally friendly".
>
>What does that have to do with trying to appeal that market?
>
Those are all valid reasons why someone would choose a product other
than yours no matter how attractive you try to make it.
>> Whatever their reasons no single product, not even drugs, has ever
>> been able to saturate a market that is free. and the drug market is
>> not exactly free but it offers more choices than MS allows in the PC
>> market. How can that be ?
>
>Who said anything about saturating the market? I said appealing to that
>market.
>
You claim that MS has achieved in excess of 90% market share by
having such an "appealing" product. I repeat that even heroin
cannot get that kind of market share.
You do not find that worth wondering about ?
A market where a single company has maintained its user base and
has acquired the users of competitors as they disappear for over ten
years and you still claim, contrary to the Courts, that they have no
monopoly ?
You are thinking the same way Gates and Ballmer do when they declare
that they have never had a monopoly.
Erik Funkenbusch
I didn't say it did.
> Your attempt at disinformation is feeble. You should really get some
> updated material.
You seem to be deliberately confusing appealing to 100% of the market with
being a monopoly. Lots of markets try to appeal to 100% of the market.
Remember, you're the one that claims that simply trying to appeal to the
whole market means you're a monopoly.
> >> No single product ever does that without monopoly being involved.
> >
> >Really? Then explain your typical VCR? They have added the ability to
> >auto-set the clocks from Public television time signals, VCR+ so users
don't
> >have to know how to program it, and idiot proof buttons. You think all
this
> >is because Sony or Panasonic have a monopoly on the VCR market?
> >
> Are you claiming that you know of a VCR maker with 75% or more
> market share ?
No, and that's my point.
> Or are you attempting to claim that all VCRs are "a single product"
> made by different companies ?
No.
> Changing the subject is avoiding the question. Which is, "What
> single product gets 75% of the populace to buy it without monopoly
> being involved" ?
This argument is not about getting 75% of the populace to buy something.
You claimed that simply trying to appeal to the entire market means you are
a monopoly, and that this only happens in monopoly controlled markets.
> >Trying to appeal to the entire market is entirely different from being a
> >monopoly.
> >
> Desiring to is not a crime. Forcing people to accept your product
> because they have no economically viable alternative is illegal and
> the *only* way that 75% of people would accept a single product is
> by having no choice.
Stop changing the subject. You claimed that attempting to appeal to the
entire market means you are a monopoly.
> >> Some people don't like the color. Others want it to be "made in
the
> >> USA" and "environmentally friendly".
> >
> >What does that have to do with trying to appeal that market?
> >
> Those are all valid reasons why someone would choose a product other
> than yours no matter how attractive you try to make it.
Of course, but what does that have to do with your claim that the mere act
of appealing trying to appeal to the whole market makes you a monopoly?
> >> Whatever their reasons no single product, not even drugs, has ever
> >> been able to saturate a market that is free. and the drug market is
> >> not exactly free but it offers more choices than MS allows in the
PC
> >> market. How can that be ?
> >
> >Who said anything about saturating the market? I said appealing to that
> >market.
>
> You claim that MS has achieved in excess of 90% market share by
> having such an "appealing" product. I repeat that even heroin
> cannot get that kind of market share.
No, I did not. I said that MS ignoring a large part of your market will
never make you a success, to which you claimed that trying appeal to the
entire maket makes you a monopoly.
> You do not find that worth wondering about ?
Are you trying to divert the discussion away from my point that Linux
ignores a very large percentage of the market by pandering to a more
intelligent consumer?
> A market where a single company has maintained its user base and
> has acquired the users of competitors as they disappear for over ten
> years and you still claim, contrary to the Courts, that they have no
> monopoly ?
Where did I say that? Jumping to conclusions again?
> You are thinking the same way Gates and Ballmer do when they declare
> that they have never had a monopoly.
Until you are declared to be a monopoly, how exactly are you to know you
have one? Can you name an exact date and time when MS became a monopoly?
How about a month? A year? When exactly did MS need to start chainging the
way it did business?
Cary L. Brown
First off, I'm afraid that this is getting personal... don't take it that way.
Defensiveness (and OFFENSIVENESS) cause people on both sides of the argument to
say stupid things which, on reflection, even they have to admit make no sense,
in order to "make their point."
that said,
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Ed Allen" <eal...@allenhome.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > You know, or at least have had Max explain repeatedly, that a
> > monopoly does not require 100%.
>
> I didn't say it did.
Your statements, however, clearly lean in that direction.
> > Your attempt at disinformation is feeble. You should really get some
> > updated material.
>
> You seem to be deliberately confusing appealing to 100% of the market with
> being a monopoly. Lots of markets try to appeal to 100% of the market.
> Remember, you're the one that claims that simply trying to appeal to the
> whole market means you're a monopoly.
No, he's not. You can re-read the material and you'll see that, though your
claim that he is saying that supports YOUR point, that claim is baseless.
No one... NO ONE... has ever said that having a GOAL of "being liked by
everyone" is a bad thing. You keep distorting the discussion by flopping back
and forth between "having 100%" and "appealing to 100%."
I think that we can all agree that every company would LIKE for it's product to
be loved by 100% of the market. And that every company will do it's best to
make a product like that, if it can. THIS IS NOT AT ALL RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC
AT HAND, HOWEVER.
The topic is not "does Microsoft want people to like Windows."
The topic is "did Microsoft do illegal/immoral things to FORCE people to use
Windows even if they're rather have been using something else," and "did
Microsoft do illegal/immoral things to prevent people from having the
opportunity to find out fi they'd rather use something else."
Can we ALL agree that this is the topic at hand, and then stick to it?
> > Are you claiming that you know of a VCR maker with 75% or more
> > market share ?
>
> No, and that's my point.
I'm missing your point then. It seems, from your statement above, that you
AGREE that there is a fundamental difference between the VCR analogy and the
Windows analogy. Yet, you're the one using that VCR analogy to attempt to
make your point. So, the point is lost here, I think...
Let me try this analogy. Suppose that there was one VCR maker, say Panasonic,
who owned Beta, and another, say Sony, who owned VHS. And both had totall
control over their respective formats. Now, suppose that the customers wanted
Beta because it had a smaller tape and better quality, but Sony told Best Buy,
Circuit City, whoever, that if they carried the Panasonic Beta machines, Sony
would refuse to allow Best Buy et al to sell Sony's hardware, or tapes, or
whatever.
What is in the best interests of the stores is to carry both. What is in the
best interests of the consumers is to have a choice of one or the other. The
vendor would have a choice of either accepting total monopoly, or giving up a
significant block of total market share completely.
Not much of a choice. And, according to federal law, totally anti-competitive.
That's exactly what Microsoft has done.
> > Changing the subject is avoiding the question. Which is, "What
> > single product gets 75% of the populace to buy it without monopoly
> > being involved" ?
>
> This argument is not about getting 75% of the populace to buy something.
> You claimed that simply trying to appeal to the entire market means you are
> a monopoly, and that this only happens in monopoly controlled markets.
BULLSHIT.
You are engaging in misdirection... either intentionally (because you don't
want to address the point being made) or subconsciously (because you recognize
at some level that if you DO address the point, you "lose.")
The argument, once again, in case you're actually not as smart as you seem to be
and are actually somehow MISSING it, is not about "trying to appeal." No one
but you is saying that... and despite the fact that you're so annoying stuck on
that concept, NO ONE ELSE sees it as having any relevance whatsoever to the
topic!
So, why do you keep trying to re-frame OTHER PEOPLE'S words to say things which
they're not actually saying? And why do you keep, as he said, avoiding the
question?
> > >Trying to appeal to the entire market is entirely different from being a
> monopoly.
> > >
> > Desiring to is not a crime. Forcing people to accept your product
> because they have no economically viable alternative is illegal and the *only*
> way that 75% of people would accept a single product is by having no choice.
>
> Stop changing the subject. You claimed that attempting to appeal to the
> entire market means you are a monopoly.
BULLSHIT.
That's what YOU want him to be saying, not what he actually IS saying. You
object, it seems, when people actually say what they WANT to say instead of what
you want them to say so that your argument makes sense. Instead of accusing him
of changing the subject, because you don't like that approach he's taking, why
don't you try and address the points he's raising?
He most certainly did NOT make the claim you state, above, and he's said so, so
many times it's almost funny. YOU are the one, the ONLY ONE, who keeps saying
this.
Figure it out, please? Seeing this done by you, over and over again, really IS
pretty infuriating.
> > Those are all valid reasons why someone would choose a product other
> than yours no matter how attractive you try to make it.
>
> Of course, but what does that have to do with your claim that the mere act of
> appealing trying to appeal to the whole market makes you a monopoly?
BULLSHIT.
You won't address the point, and you're hiding behind this same obnoxious
statement again. Why don't you address the point?
Gotta say it again... The point YOU want it to be, about "wanting everybody to
love us," is not the point ANYONE ELSE is making.
> > You claim that MS has achieved in excess of 90% market share by having
> such an "appealing" product. I repeat that even heroin cannot get that kind
> of market share.
>
> No, I did not. I said that MS ignoring a large part of your market will never
> make you a success, to which you claimed that trying appeal to the
> entire maket makes you a monopoly.
No, not "appealing" to it... <exasperated sigh>
> > You do not find that worth wondering about ?
>
> Are you trying to divert the discussion away from my point that Linux ignores
> a very large percentage of the market by pandering to a more intelligent
> consumer?
Your point about Linux is, while interesting, (1) not necessarily true, and (2)
not at all relevant to the topic at hand.
On point (1), Linux CLEARLY does ignore the "dummies" marketplace, and even
those of us who qualify as the "more intelligent consumer" tend to be put off a
little bit by the horrible mess that Linux has grown into over time. However,
it's not "pandering to the more intelligent consumer," in my judgement, because
the more intelligent consumer may well judge that his (or her) time worth too
much to spend half their life administering a Linux installation. Many of us
have more important things to do with our time, like having a job, having a
family, and having a life.
On point (2), how Linux chooses to compete is "their" (hard to say that,
exactly, because of the open-source nature) business. Linux is not doing
anything to discourage or even outright prevent anyone from using any other
operating system, are they? The topic at hand is not "should people choose
marketshares?"
The topic is "should Microsoft be able to prevent the consumer from having
choices, and thereby command a monopoly?"
Do you disagree?
> > A market where a single company has maintained its user base and has
> acquired the users of competitors as they disappear for over ten years and you
> still claim, contrary to the Courts, that they have no monopoly ?
>
> Where did I say that? Jumping to conclusions again?
Are you disputing it? Why don't you actually say "I wasn't saying that, and I
don't agree with it?"
If, on the other hand, you actually agree with this point, why don't you say
that as well?
Clarity is a GOOD THING. You should give it a shot, seriously... because you're
being remarkably unclear, and (while I cannot comment on your personal
motivations) it sure SEEMS that you're being unclear intentionally.
> > You are thinking the same way Gates and Ballmer do when they declare
> that they have never had a monopoly.
>
> Until you are declared to be a monopoly, how exactly are you to know you have
> one? Can you name an exact date and time when MS became a monopoly?
> How about a month? A year? When exactly did MS need to start chainging the
> way it did business?
Until the Earth is declared round, how exactly are you to determine that it's
round, right?
It doesn't matter if NO ONE ever "formally declares" Microsoft to be a
monopoly. Let's play with definitions, shall we?
MONOPOLY: (1) [economic] Exclusive control by one group of the means of
producing or selling a commodity or service, (2) [legal] A right granted by a
government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a
single party, (3a) A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial
activity, (3b) A commodity or service so controlled, 4) Exclusive possession or
control
Now, at least so far, the government has not granted Microsoft a legal monopoly,
and I surely hope that they never do. So, scratch def #2 from our discussion.
And since 3, A and B, and 4 all seem to be basic extentions of 1, let's stick
with it. Fair enough?
So, does Microsoft currently have exclusive control of the means of producing or
selling a commodity or service? The product or service in question is, in case
you're not aware, consumer-level computers, focusing on computer operating
systems.
Does Microsoft control the personal computer industry? Do they exercise control
over the means of producing or selling personal computers? Can a computer
seller sell whatever they like, or do they have to do what Microsoft tells them?
Does Microsoft have a measure of control over the business practices of
companies such as Dell, HP, Micron, etc, etc? Can those companies make
computers that run more than one operating system, straight out of the box, or
does Microsoft exercise control over the means of producing or selling that
commodity or service?
Hmmm... you tell me.
Ed Allen
Cary L. Brown <cary...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>Does Microsoft have a measure of control over the business practices of
>companies such as Dell, HP, Micron, etc, etc? Can those companies make
>computers that run more than one operating system, straight out of the box, or
>does Microsoft exercise control over the means of producing or selling that
>commodity or service?
>
>Hmmm... you tell me.
>
enjoyable read.
Joe User
I second that. No minced words, no fuzzy reasoning, just straight to the
heart of it. I'll sit back and watch in this one. (Besides, John Saunders
already kicked me out of this discussion for not having a degree. :)
--
Joe User
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik,
>
> First off, I'm afraid that this is getting personal... don't take it that
way.
What other way is there to take it when Ed deliberately tries to claim I
said something I didn't?
> Defensiveness (and OFFENSIVENESS) cause people on both sides of the
argument to
> say stupid things which, on reflection, even they have to admit make no
sense,
> in order to "make their point."
I agree, however I am quite aware of what has been said in this thread.
> that said,
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "Ed Allen" <eal...@allenhome.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > You know, or at least have had Max explain repeatedly, that a
> > > monopoly does not require 100%.
> >
> > I didn't say it did.
>
> Your statements, however, clearly lean in that direction.
No, they don't. This thread started when I made some comments about MS
having to appeal to the "stupid" user, to which Max claimed that users
aren't stupid and shouldn't be treated that way.
I went on to claim that otherwise intelligent users become stupid when it
comes to technology, and it merely takes working on a helpdesk for an hour
to understand that.
I said:
>Are you going to sit there and say that there aren't stupid users? The
fact
>that Linux caters to more intelligent users doesn't diminish the need for
an
>OS which supports stupid ones. No, of course all users are not stupid, or
>ignorant, or whatever, but many are. And if you want to be successful, you
>have to support the lowest common denominator.
To which Ed replied:
> The "single product must fit at least 75% of the market or it is a
> failure" is monopoly thinking Erik.
To which I replied:
>No it's not. It's competitive thinking. Appealing to 100% of the market
>doesn't mean you have 100% of the market.
And Ed responded:
> You know, or at least have had Max explain repeatedly, that a
> monopoly does not require 100%.
Which is all a complete red herring, because I wasn't the one that brought
up being a monopoly, Ed was. My claim of 100% wasn't literal, and shouldn't
have been interpreted that way. I could have just as easily said "Trying to
appeal to 75% of the market doesn't mean you HAVE 75% of the market". I
didn't say, nor did I imply that a monopoly required 100% of the market.
> > > Your attempt at disinformation is feeble. You should really get
some
> > > updated material.
> >
> > You seem to be deliberately confusing appealing to 100% of the market
with
> > being a monopoly. Lots of markets try to appeal to 100% of the market.
> > Remember, you're the one that claims that simply trying to appeal to the
> > whole market means you're a monopoly.
>
> No, he's not. You can re-read the material and you'll see that, though
your
> claim that he is saying that supports YOUR point, that claim is baseless.
No. He says that only a monopolist would try to appeal to the entire
market. That is false.
> No one... NO ONE... has ever said that having a GOAL of "being liked by
> everyone" is a bad thing. You keep distorting the discussion by flopping
back
> and forth between "having 100%" and "appealing to 100%."
You are focusing on the wrong aspect. It had nothing to do with 100%. I
could have chosen any large number, but I chose 100% arbitrarily. Ed's
claims that only a monopolist would try to appeal to the largest audience is
what this is about.
You see, Ed knows he was wrong and attempted to divert the discussion by
claiming I was trying to say that a monopoly is 100% of the market, which I
did not say nor did I imply. This was a feeble attempt by ed (though
apparently it worked in your case) to throw the attention away from his
claim.
> I think that we can all agree that every company would LIKE for it's
product to
> be loved by 100% of the market. And that every company will do it's best
to
> make a product like that, if it can. THIS IS NOT AT ALL RELEVANT TO THE
TOPIC
> AT HAND, HOWEVER.
It's precisely the topic at hand.
> The topic is not "does Microsoft want people to like Windows."
No, it's not. But it is "Why can't MS give the user a choice of whether to
overwrite the MBR?" or any of the various permutations that have gone on in
this thread. And the reason is that MS must ensure that Windows boots when
installed, regardless of the knowledge of the user installing it. Linux can
depend on the user to make that choice because they cater to a smaller
audience (intelligent users).
> The topic is "did Microsoft do illegal/immoral things to FORCE people to
use
> Windows even if they're rather have been using something else," and "did
> Microsoft do illegal/immoral things to prevent people from having the
> opportunity to find out fi they'd rather use something else."
MS can't prevent users from findingo out if they'd rather use something
else. There are all kinds of ways for a user to learn about a new OS (Book
store, user groups, software on the shelves of CompUSA, The Internet,
etc..). What MS does say, is that if you're installing their OS, and you
plan on dual booting, you best know how to reenable your bootloader.
> Can we ALL agree that this is the topic at hand, and then stick to it?
No, this is usenet. Topics drift all the time.
> > > Are you claiming that you know of a VCR maker with 75% or more
> > > market share ?
> >
> > No, and that's my point.
>
> I'm missing your point then. It seems, from your statement above, that
you
> AGREE that there is a fundamental difference between the VCR analogy and
the
> Windows analogy. Yet, you're the one using that VCR analogy to attempt
to
> make your point. So, the point is lost here, I think...
The point was in regards to Ed's claim that targeting the entire market
doesn't make you a monopolist. VCR manufacturers do it all the time (as do
many other product vendors), and they aren't monopolies.
> Let me try this analogy. Suppose that there was one VCR maker, say
Panasonic,
> who owned Beta, and another, say Sony, who owned VHS. And both had totall
> control over their respective formats. Now, suppose that the customers
wanted
> Beta because it had a smaller tape and better quality, but Sony told Best
Buy,
> Circuit City, whoever, that if they carried the Panasonic Beta machines,
Sony
> would refuse to allow Best Buy et al to sell Sony's hardware, or tapes, or
> whatever.
That isn't what's happened. MS doesn't prevent OEM's from selling computers
with other OS's. They merely prevent them from selling computers with
Windows and another OS Simultaneously.
To use your analogy, Sony told Best Buy that they couldn't weld both their
VCR and Panasonic's VCR together and sell them as a combined product, which
of course neither Sony or Panasonic *WOULD* allow.
> What is in the best interests of the stores is to carry both. What is in
the
> best interests of the consumers is to have a choice of one or the other.
The
> vendor would have a choice of either accepting total monopoly, or giving
up a
> significant block of total market share completely.
> Not much of a choice. And, according to federal law, totally
anti-competitive.
>
> That's exactly what Microsoft has done.
No, it's not. MS doesn't allow OEM's to create a situation in which the
end-user can become confused about MS's product. End of story. Of course
that also achieves the side-effect of not allowing consumers to choose
between multiple OS's on the same machine, but that's just that... a
side-effect.
> > > Changing the subject is avoiding the question. Which is, "What
> > > single product gets 75% of the populace to buy it without monopoly
> > > being involved" ?
> >
> > This argument is not about getting 75% of the populace to buy something.
> > You claimed that simply trying to appeal to the entire market means you
are
> > a monopoly, and that this only happens in monopoly controlled markets.
>
> BULLSHIT.
That's precisely what he claimed, and I've quoted it above.
> You are engaging in misdirection... either intentionally (because you
don't
> want to address the point being made) or subconsciously (because you
recognize
> at some level that if you DO address the point, you "lose.")
Please explain how:
> The "single product must fit at least 75% of the market or it is a
> failure" is monopoly thinking Erik.
cannot be interpreted as saying "If you appeal to 75% of the market, you are
a monopolist" Then explain how I am somehow trying to misdirect by claiming
that this is false.
> The argument, once again, in case you're actually not as smart as you seem
to be
And you're the one that wanted to be civil. Here you are making personal
attacks.
> and are actually somehow MISSING it, is not about "trying to appeal." No
one
> but you is saying that... and despite the fact that you're so annoying
stuck on
> that concept, NO ONE ELSE sees it as having any relevance whatsoever to
the
> topic!
Perhaps you'll change your mind after reading this message.
> So, why do you keep trying to re-frame OTHER PEOPLE'S words to say things
which
> they're not actually saying? And why do you keep, as he said, avoiding
the
> question?
He said it. Ed is actually the one making the claim that I said something I
didn't.
> > > >Trying to appeal to the entire market is entirely different from
being a
> > monopoly.
> > > >
> > > Desiring to is not a crime. Forcing people to accept your product
> > because they have no economically viable alternative is illegal and the
*only*
> > way that 75% of people would accept a single product is by having no
choice.
> >
> > Stop changing the subject. You claimed that attempting to appeal to the
> > entire market means you are a monopoly.
>
> BULLSHIT.
>
> That's what YOU want him to be saying, not what he actually IS saying.
So what *IS* He saying when he says:
> The "single product must fit at least 75% of the market or it is a
> failure" is monopoly thinking Erik.
????
> You
> object, it seems, when people actually say what they WANT to say instead
of what
> you want them to say so that your argument makes sense. Instead of
accusing him
> of changing the subject, because you don't like that approach he's taking,
why
> don't you try and address the points he's raising?
I have, his point is bullshit.
> He most certainly did NOT make the claim you state, above, and he's said
so, so
> many times it's almost funny. YOU are the one, the ONLY ONE, who keeps
saying
> this.
Did you even bother to look at this thread? His claim exists in quite a bit
of it.
> Figure it out, please? Seeing this done by you, over and over again,
really IS
> pretty infuriating.
It's even more infurating when you're told you said something you didn't by
the person who is claiming not to have said something he did.
> > > Those are all valid reasons why someone would choose a product
other
> > than yours no matter how attractive you try to make it.
> >
> > Of course, but what does that have to do with your claim that the mere
act of
> > appealing trying to appeal to the whole market makes you a monopoly?
>
> BULLSHIT.
>
> You won't address the point, and you're hiding behind this same obnoxious
> statement again. Why don't you address the point?
His point is that appealing to 75% of the market is monopoly thinking.
Presumably he's claiming that Linux is good, and not a monopoly because it
targets a smaller subset.
> Gotta say it again... The point YOU want it to be, about "wanting
everybody to
> love us," is not the point ANYONE ELSE is making.
Really? And you're the one bitching about repeating the same thing over and
over.
> > > You claim that MS has achieved in excess of 90% market share by
having
> > such an "appealing" product. I repeat that even heroin cannot get that
kind
> > of market share.
> >
> > No, I did not. I said that MS ignoring a large part of your market will
never
> > make you a success, to which you claimed that trying appeal to the
> > entire maket makes you a monopoly.
>
> No, not "appealing" to it... <exasperated sigh>
You're correct. He said "Must fit", which in my book is exactly the same as
"appealing".
> > > You do not find that worth wondering about ?
> >
> > Are you trying to divert the discussion away from my point that Linux
ignores
> > a very large percentage of the market by pandering to a more intelligent
> > consumer?
>
> Your point about Linux is, while interesting, (1) not necessarily true,
and (2)
> not at all relevant to the topic at hand.
It's precisely relevant. The claims were made that "Why can't MS do what
Linux does?". And my response is that Linux can afford to ask confusing
questions because they target a more intelligent consumer. MS cannot.
> On point (1), Linux CLEARLY does ignore the "dummies" marketplace, and
even
> those of us who qualify as the "more intelligent consumer" tend to be put
off a
> little bit by the horrible mess that Linux has grown into over time.
However,
> it's not "pandering to the more intelligent consumer," in my judgement,
because
> the more intelligent consumer may well judge that his (or her) time worth
too
> much to spend half their life administering a Linux installation. Many of
us
> have more important things to do with our time, like having a job, having
a
> family, and having a life.
This is a good point, and you are correct. "pandering" is probably the
wrong word to use. More correctly "Linux assumes a more intelligent
consumer".
> On point (2), how Linux chooses to compete is "their" (hard to say that,
> exactly, because of the open-source nature) business. Linux is not doing
> anything to discourage or even outright prevent anyone from using any
other
> operating system, are they? The topic at hand is not "should people
choose
> marketshares?"
No, the topic is derived from the question as to why can't MS do what Linux
does. As such, it's completely on topic.
> The topic is "should Microsoft be able to prevent the consumer from having
> choices, and thereby command a monopoly?"
MS has a right to demand that their product be used in specific ways by
their authorized resellers. This is simple copyright and trademark law. I
can't take someone elses product and slap my own name on it and resell it,
for instance, without their approval. I also can't modify their trade dress
without approval.
> Do you disagree?
I think there is more at stake here than just denying competitors. I think
there are legitimate trademark and copyright issues, not to mention support
ones.
> > > A market where a single company has maintained its user base and
has
> > acquired the users of competitors as they disappear for over ten years
and you
> > still claim, contrary to the Courts, that they have no monopoly ?
> >
> > Where did I say that? Jumping to conclusions again?
>
> Are you disputing it? Why don't you actually say "I wasn't saying that,
and I
> don't agree with it?"
I didn't say that and disagree with it. Happy?
> If, on the other hand, you actually agree with this point, why don't you
say
> that as well?
I don't. And again, he's the one claiming I said something I did not.
> Clarity is a GOOD THING. You should give it a shot, seriously... because
you're
> being remarkably unclear, and (while I cannot comment on your personal
> motivations) it sure SEEMS that you're being unclear intentionally.
I make the same mistake as Linux. I assume the person reading my words is
intelligent enough to realize that when I say "Where did I say that?" I'm
saying "I didn't say that, show me where I did or stop claiming it." Sorry
for assuming you have a brain.
> > > You are thinking the same way Gates and Ballmer do when they
declare
> > that they have never had a monopoly.
> >
> > Until you are declared to be a monopoly, how exactly are you to know you
have
> > one? Can you name an exact date and time when MS became a monopoly?
> > How about a month? A year? When exactly did MS need to start chainging
the
> > way it did business?
>
> Until the Earth is declared round, how exactly are you to determine that
it's
> round, right?
It's been declared round.
> It doesn't matter if NO ONE ever "formally declares" Microsoft to be a
> monopoly. Let's play with definitions, shall we?
If nobody else can figure out when exactly MS became a monopoly, how exactly
could MS have known when they were supposed to change the way they do
business?
> MONOPOLY: (1) [economic] Exclusive control by one group of the means of
> producing or selling a commodity or service, (2) [legal] A right granted
by a
> government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity
to a
> single party, (3a) A company or group having exclusive control over a
commercial
> activity, (3b) A commodity or service so controlled, 4) Exclusive
possession or
> control
>
> Now, at least so far, the government has not granted Microsoft a legal
monopoly,
> and I surely hope that they never do. So, scratch def #2 from our
discussion.
>
> And since 3, A and B, and 4 all seem to be basic extentions of 1, let's
stick
> with it. Fair enough?
No, the dictionary definition is not the legal definition. In order to be a
monopoly, a number of legal tests must be administered, and only a trained
jurist can legally decide if it's true or not.
> So, does Microsoft currently have exclusive control of the means of
producing or
> selling a commodity or service? The product or service in question is, in
case
> you're not aware, consumer-level computers, focusing on computer operating
> systems.
No, they do not have exclusive control.
> Does Microsoft control the personal computer industry? Do they exercise
control
> over the means of producing or selling personal computers? Can a computer
> seller sell whatever they like, or do they have to do what Microsoft tells
them?
Yes, they can sell whatever they like. Thing is, most of the time, they
want to sell Windows (because that's what their customers want).
> Does Microsoft have a measure of control over the business practices of
> companies such as Dell, HP, Micron, etc, etc? Can those companies make
> computers that run more than one operating system, straight out of the
box, or
> does Microsoft exercise control over the means of producing or selling
that
> commodity or service?
MS does exercise control over selling their operating system and how it can
be sold, yes. That does not control how OEM's sell computers with other
OS's, unless they are trying to sell that other OS on the same machine as
the MS OS.
> Hmmm... you tell me.
This is all irrelevant though, since the legal definition of a monopoly is
quite different.
Cary L. Brown
> "Cary L. Brown" <cary...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> > First off, I'm afraid that this is getting personal... don't take it that
> way.
>
> What other way is there to take it when Ed deliberately tries to claim I said
> something I didn't?
I've been following the thread and, although you may not think that this is what
you were saying, that's sure what I've seen in the thread. But, here's a chance
to go "on record." Do you disagree with the statement which, as you say, Ed is
attributing to you? If you do, say so without mincing words, and that'll be the
end of that argument, don't you think?
> > Your statements, however, clearly lean in that direction.
>
> No, they don't. This thread started when I made some comments about MS having
> to appeal to the "stupid" user, to which Max claimed that users aren't stupid
> and shouldn't be treated that way.
>
> I went on to claim that otherwise intelligent users become stupid when it
> comes to technology, and it merely takes working on a helpdesk for an hour to
> understand that.
Ah, I see what you're trying to say. Or, at least I think I do. The basis of
that point is that you believe that all technology must, by definition, be
"idiot-proofed" to the point where it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to do something
dumb. Sort of like McDonalds putting "please don't dump hot coffee on your lap,
it might smart a bit" labels on their coffee cups?
Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that, all legalese aside, idiots will
ALWAYS manage to screw things up. There is NO SUCH THING as "idiot-proofing,"
only "lawsuit-proofing." Ya know how many people got taken in by receiving
instructions from their supposed tech-savvy online friends in the early days of
the net to fix a problem by giving the "system restore command," which of course
is C:/DOS/FORMAT C:?
That said, I do NOT see any parallels here. What we're talking about is the
option of a MANUFACTURER to sell computers with multiple boot options. It's a
whole 'nother animal. And honestly, even the total technology idiots I know
bother to at least read the "quick start" sheets for their computers. We are
not talking about the ability to prevent technical problems, which Microsoft has
never bothered to fix in many cases and which, in all cases, makes MS a ton of
money. Yes, despite claims earlier in the thread to the contrary, MS charges
for their technical support.
> I said:
> >Are you going to sit there and say that there aren't stupid users? The fact
> that Linux caters to more intelligent users doesn't diminish the need for an
> OS which supports stupid ones. No, of course all users are not stupid, or
> ignorant, or whatever, but many are. And if you want to be successful, you
> have to support the lowest common denominator.
>
> To which Ed replied:
>
> > The "single product must fit at least 75% of the market or it is a
> failure" is monopoly thinking Erik.
Well, OK, I'll give you a few points on this one. And I can see where some of
your vitriole on the issue comes from. But that doesn't mean I agree
completely.
I was working at a major automobile manufacturer until recently, when I changed
jobs and now work for a major appliance manufacturer (where the market is more
stable in low economic times) Both of these industries have agendas of making a
vehicles that can obtain the majority of a particular MARKET SEGMENT.
For instance, Ford's Explorer is targetted at a particular market segment...
but it's not at ALL targetted toward the "little old ladies" market, or the
"family of six" market. The Explorer cannot really penetrate into those
marketplaces, where small, sturdy vehicles or mini-vans, respectively, fill the
bill.
How about home appliances? The Maytag Neptune washer is a "premium" device,
selling for a top-of-the line model price of $1,400. Maytag does not target the
low-end market share at all, but instead leaves that for the competition. The
intention is to own the majority of a particular market SEGMENT. Meanwhile,
most apartments come with cheap mass-produced GE washers that run for $500 or
less. Different market segments within a particular marketplace.
This is actually the thinking that Be got swept into believing by Microsoft.
The idea was coexisting with MS, letting MS take one market segment while Be
could take another one. This is common thinking, and works in most industries.
Of course, as we know now, MS was not sincere in their statement to Be that they
were game for this approach.
> To which I replied:
>
> >No it's not. It's competitive thinking. Appealing to 100% of the market
> doesn't mean you have 100% of the market.
Ah, yes, where the "appeal" concept came up. I really wish you'd let it go,
though...
> And Ed responded:
>
> > You know, or at least have had Max explain repeatedly, that a monopoly
> does not require 100%.
>
> Which is all a complete red herring, because I wasn't the one that brought up
> being a monopoly, Ed was. My claim of 100% wasn't literal, and shouldn't have
> been interpreted that way. I could have just as easily said "Trying to appeal
> to 75% of the market doesn't mean you HAVE 75% of the market". I didn't say,
> nor did I imply that a monopoly required 100% of the market.
Okay, the concept of monopoly is the CORE of this entire thread! Did you miss
that somehow? I think that you're straining to make your points, I really do.
I'm curious, could you just let us all know, once and for all, what you really
think? Not replies, not recriminations or whatever, just a straightforward
statement about what you want and what you think. I, and a number of others,
get the FEELING that you're being an apologist for Microsoft's behavior. Maybe
this is not an accurate impression, but you REALLY need to correct it if it's
not accurate.
> > No, he's not. You can re-read the material and you'll see that, though your
> claim that he is saying that supports YOUR point, that claim is baseless.
>
> No. He says that only a monopolist would try to appeal to the entire market.
> That is false.
I see where you got it from... and can see how you could have taken that ONE
phrase, and (without trying to take it in it's most accurate context) could have
simply run with it. But, honestly, he's said SOO much else in this thread as
well, had you simply read (without bias) the statements being made, you'd know
what he was trying to communicate.
Minor mis-phrasings, as a rule, should not be taken as the ONLY points to be
addressed... you have picked that one bit and won't let it go, regardless of
how much else was said, or has been said since. I'll assume, with lack of any
other evidence to the contrary, that you're only sticking to this point because
it annoyed you at some level and you just don't want to let it go, rather than
the alternative (that you are intentionally avoiding the major subject).
> > No one... NO ONE... has ever said that having a GOAL of "being liked by
> everyone" is a bad thing. You keep distorting the discussion by flopping back
> and forth between "having 100%" and "appealing to 100%."
>
> You are focusing on the wrong aspect. It had nothing to do with 100%. I
> could have chosen any large number, but I chose 100% arbitrarily. Ed's claims
> that only a monopolist would try to appeal to the largest audience is what
> this is about.
>
> You see, Ed knows he was wrong and attempted to divert the discussion by
> claiming I was trying to say that a monopoly is 100% of the market, which I
> did not say nor did I imply. This was a feeble attempt by ed (though
> apparently it worked in your case) to throw the attention away from his claim.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE.
You are looking at this as though it's YOU, and ED, who are being discussed
here. You've attached your own ego (and, possibly, Ed has attached his as well,
I won't address that in this post) to this argument, instead of remaining
dispassionate and discussing the facts. That's what I was getting at in the
beginning of my last post!
Frankly, neither you, nor Ed, nor I, are not particularly important in this
discussion's topic. The actual involved elements in this discussion should be,
as follows, (1) the law, (2) morality, (3) Microsoft, and (4) BeOS and Be, Inc.
So, let's all TRY to keep our own personal egos out of this (and yes, that
includes me!) and try to focus not on "Erik versus Ed" and instead on "what is
Microsoft doing" which is the topic we're supposely discussing.
> > I think that we can all agree that every company would LIKE for it's product
> to be loved by 100% of the market. And that every company will do it's best
> to make a product like that, if it can. THIS IS NOT AT ALL RELEVANT TO THE
> TOPIC AT HAND, HOWEVER.
>
> It's precisely the topic at hand.
Nope.
> > The topic is not "does Microsoft want people to like Windows."
>
> No, it's not. But it is "Why can't MS give the user a choice of whether to
> overwrite the MBR?" or any of the various permutations that have gone on in
> this thread. And the reason is that MS must ensure that Windows boots when
> installed, regardless of the knowledge of the user installing it. Linux can
> depend on the user to make that choice because they cater to a smaller
> audience (intelligent users).
MISDIRECTION!!!
You know damned well that a USER can overwrite the MBR any time they like
(though with WinXP that's just become that much more difficult!).
But you also know damned well that we're not talking about the USER doing this
anyway. We're talking about the COMPUTER VENDOR doing it. The VENDOR knows
more about the system they're building that Microsoft possibly can (unless
Microsoft ends up owning all the vendors, I suppose... God forbid!)
Your argument about idiot-proofing the MBR is both irrelevant and incorrect
because the user would not be modifying it, the hardware vendor would be.
And, excuse me, but since when does the MBR BELONG to Microsoft??? The MBR is
not the property of Microsoft, despite MS's best arguments to the contrary
(after all, they want to be the SOLE vendor of all things computer-related...
hence the X-Box, MS's first "back-door" computer system, designed so as not to
scare away all the other hardware vendors YET.) No, the Master Boot Record is
not part of the operating system, it's part of the COMPUTER, and it's the part
of the computer which STARTS the operating system, or system(s). Microsoft does
not have any right to "GIVE" anyone the choice to do this... it's none of their
freakin' business!!!
> > The topic is "did Microsoft do illegal/immoral things to FORCE people to use
> Windows even if they're rather have been using something else," and "did
> Microsoft do illegal/immoral things to prevent people from having the
> opportunity to find out fi they'd rather use something else."
>
> MS can't prevent users from findingo out if they'd rather use something else.
> There are all kinds of ways for a user to learn about a new OS (Book store,
> user groups, software on the shelves of CompUSA, The Internet, etc..). What
> MS does say, is that if you're installing their OS, and you plan on dual
> booting, you best know how to reenable your bootloader.
Well, that's the whole point here. Microsoft prevented the installation of
secondary OSs PRECISELY to do this. Someone who already KNOWS can (at least up
'til WinXP) go out and install some other bootloader, and install some other OS,
and everything works just hunky-dory. But, those who DON'T know that, or who
don't wanna go through all the trouble of doing it themselves, well, they either
don't even know that there is something else, or they have a lot of work to make
it happen. They don't even have the CHOICE of buying a computer which is
already set up that way.
> > Can we ALL agree that this is the topic at hand, and then stick to it?
>
> No, this is usenet. Topics drift all the time.
BULLSHIT.
The topic is "HOW MICROSOFT USED A SECRET VENDOR LICENSE TO (ALMOST?) KILL
BEOS."
You want another topic, change the subject line, or start another thread.
Saying that "it's the net" is like saying that it's OK to murder people because
you're in downtown Detroit, and everyone else does it. I'm sorry, that doesn't
make it right...
And, naturally, once again you're disagreeing almost as though you think that
you're once again going to "win a point" for doing so.
> > I'm missing your point then. It seems, from your statement above, that you
> AGREE that there is a fundamental difference between the VCR analogy and the
> Windows analogy. Yet, you're the one using that VCR analogy to attempt to
> make your point. So, the point is lost here, I think...
>
> The point was in regards to Ed's claim that targeting the entire market
> doesn't make you a monopolist. VCR manufacturers do it all the time (as do
> many other product vendors), and they aren't monopolies.
Not really.
You've got high-end VCRs, you've got low-end ones, you've got high-speed dubbing
ones, dual-deck ones, Hi-Fi ones, stereo and mono, and you USED to have beta and
VHS. Each of those is targetted at a particular subgroup in the overall
market. None of those are targetted at the ENTIRE market. And no one company
has actually managed to gain more than a 40% or thereabout market share in any
one of those segments! Hence, no monopoly involved.
> > Let me try this analogy. Suppose that there was one VCR maker, say
> Panasonic, who owned Beta, and another, say Sony, who owned VHS. And both had
> total control over their respective formats. Now, suppose that the customers
> wanted Beta because it had a smaller tape and better quality, but Sony told
> Best Buy, Circuit City, whoever, that if they carried the Panasonic Beta
> machines, Sony would refuse to allow Best Buy et al to sell Sony's hardware,
> or tapes, or whatever.
>
> That isn't what's happened. MS doesn't prevent OEM's from selling computers
> with other OS's. They merely prevent them from selling computers with Windows
> and another OS Simultaneously.
Which Microsoft has no legal business doing... read on...
> To use your analogy, Sony told Best Buy that they couldn't weld both their VCR
> and Panasonic's VCR together and sell them as a combined product, which of
> course neither Sony or Panasonic *WOULD* allow.
That's NOT my analogy. That's NOT what I said... That's NOT what I meant. And
it doesn't fit, either.
Microsoft wants to tell us that the entire computer belongs to them. It does
not.
Let's be clear on this - the OS is NOT THE COMPUTER!!!!! The OS is not the
master boot record, it's not the command architecture, it's not any of that.
The OS is just the OS, nothing more or less. (Oh, and it also isn't the
browser... :-)
Now, if you were saying that, Oh, lets say Dell, could splice Microsoft Windows
and BeOS into a single OPERATING SYSTEM, then the analogy YOU use would fit,
because you'd be taking what DOES belong to Microsoft (ie, Microsoft Windows)
and splicing it onto something that doesn't (ie, BeOS)
Let's try your analogy again, from another angle. According to your version of
the analogy, it should be physically impossible to hook up both a VHS and a BETA
machine to a TV, because the entire ENTERTAINMENT CENTER actually belongs to the
vendor of the VCR, not just the VCR itself.
> > What is in the best interests of the stores is to carry both. What is in
> the best interests of the consumers is to have a choice of one or the other.
> The vendor would have a choice of either accepting total monopoly, or giving
> up a significant block of total market share completely.
>
> > Not much of a choice. And, according to federal law, totally
> anti-competitive.
> >
> > That's exactly what Microsoft has done.
>
> No, it's not. MS doesn't allow OEM's to create a situation in which the
> end-user can become confused about MS's product. End of story. Of course
> that also achieves the side-effect of not allowing consumers to choose between
> multiple OS's on the same machine, but that's just that... a side-effect.
Yes, it is.
I don't need to restate the whole thing I already stated. It stands on it's
own, and requires no further repeating. Your argument about "MS is actually
protecting the stupid consumers from getting confused" is totally ludicrous,
however. Someone who can't understand "press 1 for windows, press 2 for BeOS"
is sure as hell not going to understand "click start to begin" either, are they?
Especially if they had to SPECIAL ORDER the machine configured that way, which
is what most OEMs were originally intending to do!
> > You are engaging in misdirection... either intentionally (because you don't
> want to address the point being made) or subconsciously (because you recognize
> at some level that if you DO address the point, you "lose.")
>
> Please explain how:
I already have, more than once... you've applied your ego to the argument, so
when you are contradicted, you feel that you need to fight for personal honor
somehow, it seems. Someone makes a point, you disregard what they actually
SAID, and continue on the point you've latched onto from several postings back
and some other portion of the email to boot!
> > The argument, once again, in case you're actually not as smart as you seem
> to be
>
> And you're the one that wanted to be civil. Here you are making personal
> attacks.
No, that's not an attack... I'm actually saying that you seem to be smart.
> > So, why do you keep trying to re-frame OTHER PEOPLE'S words to say things
> which they're not actually saying? And why do you keep, as he said, avoiding
> the question?
>
> He said it. Ed is actually the one making the claim that I said something I
> didn't.
Then, address THAT POINT, and stop saying that it's NOT the point... just
answer that claim and say what you REALLY DO BELIEVE. I really wanna know... do
you or do you not believe that MS has engaged in unfair and monopolistic
business practices? In other words, let's take this back to where it ought to
be, the topic of the thread, rather than "Erik versus Ed."
> > > > >Trying to appeal to the entire market is entirely different from being
> a monopoly.
> > > > >
> > > > Desiring to is not a crime. Forcing people to accept your product
> because they have no economically viable alternative is illegal and the *only*
> way that 75% of people would accept a single product is by having no choice.
> > >
> > > Stop changing the subject. You claimed that attempting to appeal to the
> entire market means you are a monopoly.
> >
> > BULLSHIT.
> >
> > That's what YOU want him to be saying, not what he actually IS saying.
>
> So what *IS* He saying when he says:
>
> > The "single product must fit at least 75% of the market or it is a
> failure" is monopoly thinking Erik.
I give up. You simply won't hear ANYTHING ANYONE ELSE SAYS because you've
latched onto one point you can dredge up over and over again because you think
it "wins you a point."
That's pathetic. It really is.
> > You object, it seems, when people actually say what they WANT to say instead
> of what you want them to say so that your argument makes sense. Instead of
> accusing him of changing the subject, because you don't like that approach
> he's taking, why don't you try and address the points he's raising?
>
> I have, his point is bullshit.
You haven't, and it's not.
You have not ONCE addressed the points he's making. Instead, you avoid every
point except for the one issue you think can win you some bonus credit, it
seems. You keep going back to the definition of "wanting 100% to like us" or
"wanting 75% to like us" when that is clearly not the point of the discussion or
the point that Ed was trying to make...
I can't comprehend why you feel the need to do this but it's obvious to me that
it's what you're doing... and since I'm not the one either doing it or being
done to, I clearly don't have an ax to grind towards either of you.
> > Figure it out, please? Seeing this done by you, over and over again, really
> IS pretty infuriating.
>
> It's even more infurating when you're told you said something you didn't by
> the person who is claiming not to have said something he did.
So, you're annoyed by this. Clear it up, permanently. Say that what you
believe, and move PAST this point. How hard is that?
> > > > Those are all valid reasons why someone would choose a product other
> than yours no matter how attractive you try to make it.
> > >
> > > Of course, but what does that have to do with your claim that the mere act
> of appealing trying to appeal to the whole market makes you a monopoly?
> >
> > BULLSHIT.
> >
> > You won't address the point, and you're hiding behind this same obnoxious
> statement again. Why don't you address the point?
>
> His point is that appealing to 75% of the market is monopoly thinking.
> Presumably he's claiming that Linux is good, and not a monopoly because it
> targets a smaller subset.
You're PRESUMING what he means? You have no right to do that... unless he said
what you just attributed to him, you're totally out of line in attributing it to
him at all. Similarly to how I, or Ed, or whoever, would be out of line in
suggesting that you're actually saying that you SUPPORT what Microsoft is doing
just because it can be inferred from the approach you seem to be taking in this
argument.
By the way, that's why I want you to come out and tell us what you really think,
so we don't have to PRESUME what you really mean...
His point, IN ONE LINE IN ONE POST IN A RESPONSE, and which you have latched
onto with wild abandon it seems, was that when company sets forward to obtain an
unusually (even controlling) market share, establishes that anything less than
that is "failure," AND THEN COMMITS ITSELF TO DOING ANYTHING, LEGAL OR NOT, TO
AVOID SUCH "FAILURE," well, honestly, I gotta agree with him on that point.
But, he left that last (bold) section out... and that's why you keep harping on
it, I think. That last part is implied, but not explicitely stated, in his
statement. If he says, now, that this is what he was getting at, will you
PUH-LEASE stop gnawing on that one little bone???
> > Gotta say it again... The point YOU want it to be, about "wanting everybody
> to love us," is not the point ANYONE ELSE is making.
>
> Really? And you're the one bitching about repeating the same thing over and
> over.
I'm giving the same response to your making the same statement... it's hard to
come up with 1000 unique replies to one point which has been repeated ad
nauseum.
> > > > You claim that MS has achieved in excess of 90% market share by
> having such an "appealing" product. I repeat that even heroin cannot get that
> kind of market share.
> > >
> > > No, I did not. I said that MS ignoring a large part of your market will
> never make you a success, to which you claimed that trying appeal to the
> entire maket makes you a monopoly.
> >
> > No, not "appealing" to it... <exasperated sigh>
>
> You're correct. He said "Must fit", which in my book is exactly the same as
> "appealing".
Which book is that? Because it's not in mine. Appeal is an emotional
response. We're not talking about like or dislike; we're talking about facts,
not feelings. What MS has done is not try to make people like them best, what
they've done is try to prevent people from getting the chance to DISCOVER if
they might like someone better.
In a "romantic" relationship, this is the guy who beats his girlfriend if she so
much as talks to another guy...
> > > > You do not find that worth wondering about ?
> > >
> > > Are you trying to divert the discussion away from my point that Linux
> ignores a very large percentage of the market by pandering to a more
> intelligent consumer?
> >
> > Your point about Linux is, while interesting, (1) not necessarily true, and
> (2) not at all relevant to the topic at hand.
>
> It's precisely relevant. The claims were made that "Why can't MS do what
> Linux does?". And my response is that Linux can afford to ask confusing
> questions because they target a more intelligent consumer. MS cannot.
Nope... the questions would be asked of a VENDOR, not of a user, in this case.
The vendor sure as hell oughta know at least as much about the computer in
question as the end-user will, don't you think?
> > On point (1), Linux CLEARLY does ignore the "dummies" marketplace, and even
> those of us who qualify as the "more intelligent consumer" tend to be put off
> a little bit by the horrible mess that Linux has grown into over time.
> However, it's not "pandering to the more intelligent consumer," in my
> judgement, because the more intelligent consumer may well judge that his (or
> her) time worth too much to spend half their life administering a Linux
> installation. Many of us have more important things to do with our time, like
> having a job, having a family, and having a life.
>
> This is a good point, and you are correct. "pandering" is probably the wrong
> word to use. More correctly "Linux assumes a more intelligent consumer".
Fair enough, and probably true. But, again, ultimately irrelevant in the topic
about COMPUTER SYSTEM VENDORS having the option to sell multi-boot systems.
After all, the consumer who doesn't want this feature would probalby not buy a
computer with it, and if they did, they probably would never use it. It should
be up to the VENDOR to determine what they sell and to whom, depending on what
the market requests.
And as a reminder, once again, the OS is NOT THE COMPUTER. So, a computer maker
should be able to install dozens of operating systems if they want, provided
that they don't modify them. And, again, the bootloader is NOT the operating
system, though it (like many other applications) can, potentially, be bundled
WITH the operating system.
> > On point (2), how Linux chooses to compete is "their" (hard to say that,
> exactly, because of the open-source nature) business. Linux is not doing
> anything to discourage or even outright prevent anyone from using any other
> operating system, are they? The topic at hand is not "should people choose
> marketshares?"
>
> No, the topic is derived from the question as to why can't MS do what Linux
> does. As such, it's completely on topic.
>
> > The topic is "should Microsoft be able to prevent the consumer from having
> > choices, and thereby command a monopoly?"
>
> MS has a right to demand that their product be used in specific ways by their
> authorized resellers. This is simple copyright and trademark law. I can't
> take someone elses product and slap my own name on it and resell it, for
> instance, without their approval. I also can't modify their trade dress
> without approval.
MICROSOFT IS NOT MAKING THE FUCKING COMPUTERS!!!!
Sheesh...
MS does not have any right to demand that if you buy their product you can't use
someone elses. The only right that they have is to tell you that when you
HAPPEN to be using Windows, you can use it as permitted, and that you cannot
modify, decompile, recompile, etc, the OS code.
If I take Windows, replace the splash screen to say "Cary's Windows" and sell it
as my own, that's illegal. If I take chunks of Windows code and use it in some
other program without permission of the owner, Microsoft, that's illegal. If I
have a computer, which is NOT Microsoft property, and want to run Windows, BeOS,
Linus, QNX, whatever, on it... as long as I don't modify the installation of
Windows itself in any way, it's none of Microsoft's business, legally or
otherwise.
You keep saying this as though Microsoft is either (1) the computer supplier, or
(2) the computer user. I mean, only those two legal entities have any concern
whatsoever about how the COMPUTER is used. Microsoft is only involved there
when, and ONLY WHEN, Windows or some portion of the windows code is being used.
> > Do you disagree?
>
> I think there is more at stake here than just denying competitors. I think
> there are legitimate trademark and copyright issues, not to mention support
> ones.
The support ones are a total red herring on your part though. I know, from
personal experience, that Microsoft does NOT provide technical support free of
charge. Even when you have a supposedly "free support period" you've actually
paid for that as part of your license fee... They charged you whether you use it
or not. And most of us don't even get that "support period," after all...
consumer-level licenses pay from the very beginning!
> > > > A market where a single company has maintained its user base and has
> acquired the users of competitors as they disappear for over ten years and you
> still claim, contrary to the Courts, that they have no monopoly ?
> > >
> > > Where did I say that? Jumping to conclusions again?
> >
> > Are you disputing it? Why don't you actually say "I wasn't saying that, and
> I don't agree with it?"
>
> I didn't say that and disagree with it. Happy?
Actually, yes, I am. Because now you're on record as agreeing that Microsoft
DOES have a monopoly... (pretty much a given to most people anyway)... and
now we have established this, the argument may well be over. Because the main
reason the argument has been going on is that the appearances have been that you
have been saying that MS does NOT have a monopoly...
> > If, on the other hand, you actually agree with this point, why don't you say
> that as well?
>
> I don't. And again, he's the one claiming I said something I did not.
Fair enough
> > Clarity is a GOOD THING. You should give it a shot, seriously... because
> you're being remarkably unclear, and (while I cannot comment on your personal
> motivations) it sure SEEMS that you're being unclear intentionally.
>
> I make the same mistake as Linux. I assume the person reading my words is
> intelligent enough to realize that when I say "Where did I say that?" I'm
> saying "I didn't say that, show me where I did or stop claiming it." Sorry
> for assuming you have a brain.
Now, that was a personal attack... to which the obvious response is... "bite
me." :-)
> > > > You are thinking the same way Gates and Ballmer do when they declare
> that they have never had a monopoly.
> > >
> > > Until you are declared to be a monopoly, how exactly are you to know you
> have one? Can you name an exact date and time when MS became a monopoly? How
> about a month? A year? When exactly did MS need to start chainging the way
> it did business?
> >
> > Until the Earth is declared round, how exactly are you to determine that
> it's round, right?
>
> It's been declared round.
Yeah, but it was round loooong before that. The declaration was irrelevant.
> > It doesn't matter if NO ONE ever "formally declares" Microsoft to be a
> monopoly. Let's play with definitions, shall we?
>
> If nobody else can figure out when exactly MS became a monopoly, how exactly
> could MS have known when they were supposed to change the way they do
> business?
Ahem... that comment is REALLY not worthy of comment... it's simply pathetic.
> > MONOPOLY: (1) [economic] Exclusive control by one group of the means of
> producing or selling a commodity or service, (2) [legal] A right granted by a
> government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a
> single party, (3a) A company or group having exclusive control over a
> commercial activity, (3b) A commodity or service so controlled, 4) Exclusive
> possession or control
> >
> > Now, at least so far, the government has not granted Microsoft a legal
> monopoly, and I surely hope that they never do. So, scratch def #2 from our
> discussion.
> >
> > And since 3, A and B, and 4 all seem to be basic extentions of 1, let's
> stick with it. Fair enough?
>
> No, the dictionary definition is not the legal definition. In order to be a
> monopoly, a number of legal tests must be administered, and only a trained
> jurist can legally decide if it's true or not.
Oh, really? I forgot, the law doesn't serve the people, it RULES the people...
funny, that's not what the founders of this nation intended.
The law is not some lofty thing that only the "elite" can comprehend, and the
rest of us mere sheep simply have to live under, being taken care of by the
far-superior liberal-elites. What you just said smacks of Nazi thinking... and
I'm not being perjorative or insulting, I'm actually 100% serious.
The definition of the word "IS," no matter what Bill Clinton wanted it to mean,
is not subject to debate and evaluation by the "trained jurists." "Sex,"
likewise, is something that all people know the meaning of, and despite his
defense's attempts to redefine what sex is, didn't actually change the meaning
of the word, did it? OK, granted, there are now a whole group of kids who think
that when they're going at it, unless there's unprotected penetration to
ejaculation, they didn't "really" have sex... but they're wrong.
Similarly, the definition of the word "monopoly" is not subject to whatever the
judge of the day happens to want it to mean (depending on how much money Bill
Gates has slipped to him in his bank account in the Caymans). Words have
meaning... and that meaning is not "flexible, depending on what we would like it
to mean."
Monopoly is a well-defined term. The word, with it's same meaning, has been
around for longer than any of us, and will be around, still meaning the same
thing, long after all of us are dead and buried.
> > So, does Microsoft currently have exclusive control of the means of
> producing or selling a commodity or service? The product or service in
> question is, in case you're not aware, consumer-level computers, focusing on
> computer operating systems.
>
> No, they do not have exclusive control.
Yeah? How so? Because they allow Macs to be sold? Let's be blunt, the only
reason Apple is still alive is due to the infusion of Microsoft cash a couple of
years ago... and, possibly, the fact that Steve Jobs is also selling crack on
the side... that's the only explanation for the appearance of the latest
iMacs... ;-)
Microsoft basically dictates how Apple can do business... and how Dell, Micron,
HP, Epson, etc, etc, etc, can do business, and how the software vendors can do
business, and how the hardware makers can do business... Name one element of
the computer business that Microsoft doesn't have control in, please. Then,
name the other firm, agency, or other legal entity with which MS is in
competition for that same level of control.
> > Does Microsoft control the personal computer industry? Do they exercise
> control over the means of producing or selling personal computers? Can a
> computer seller sell whatever they like, or do they have to do what Microsoft
> tells them?
>
> Yes, they can sell whatever they like. Thing is, most of the time, they want
> to sell Windows (because that's what their customers want).
No, they cannot. That's the ENTIRE POINT OF THIS THREAD. They cannot sell a
computer that dual-boots between Windows and Linux, or Windows and BeOS, or
Windows and "ErikOS," or whatever... this is a well-established fact.
You're right, most of the time they want to sell windows and most of the time
that's what the customers want. But there are those who do NOT want that, who
want to buy a preconfigured dual-boot system, and the vendors do not have that
option.
Disagree? Prove your point, then. To see what you need to disprove, just go to
the top of the thread!
> > Does Microsoft have a measure of control over the business practices of
> companies such as Dell, HP, Micron, etc, etc? Can those companies make
> computers that run more than one operating system, straight out of the box, or
> does Microsoft exercise control over the means of producing or selling that
> commodity or service?
>
> MS does exercise control over selling their operating system and how it can be
> sold, yes. That does not control how OEM's sell computers with other OS's,
> unless they are trying to sell that other OS on the same machine as the MS OS.
>
> > Hmmm... you tell me.
>
> This is all irrelevant though, since the legal definition of a monopoly is
> quite different.
So you say... wanna post that "quite different" legal definition here?
Oh, and suppose that you are actually one of those rare people who is actually
intimately familiar with these definitions... why is that? I mean, most people
who know this stuff have either been involved with such lawsuits as lawyers or
as involved parties. I've been involved in exactly this sort of lawsuit several
years back as a witness for an involved party (non-computer-related btw), so I
have some first-hand knowledge of how this is dealt with in court. Do you have
such knowledge? If so, are you a lawyer or an involved party, if so, in what
sort of cases, and if not, why would you (as you appear to be claiming) know
about this?
You seem, all throughout this thread, to be latching onto any point you can find
to defend Microsoft's practices. Now, you've moved to a new point... claiming
that "legal definitions" aren't the same as ENGLISH definitions... but in any
case, you're once again trying to defend MS's practices. Why is that, exactly?
Doesn't make much sense to me, unless you're here on a pro-Microsoft task of
some sort... but that also makes little to no sense, right? So, help me out
here.
John Saunders
news:kBzk7.146469$k7.37...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
No, I kicked you out of any discussion with _me_ about operating systems
because you don't have a degree. Feel free to discuss what you want with
anyone else, or to discuss other things with me. There's just no point in
expecting you to know what you say you don't know.
--
John Saunders
j...@ma.ultranet.com
Nearl J. Toothenbecker
>
*>snip<*
>It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
>Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu
>http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
And it'll be called an "Amiga 1200." Right?
Joe User
John Saunders <j...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote in message
news:9mv225$o2f$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
As you know, I didn't say anything about what I know or don't know. You
asked if I had a degree in CS. I replied that I don't have a degree in
anything. You replied that the discussion was closed, commenting that you
didn't have the time to educate me about the complexities of operating
systems (even though we were only talking about DOS).
I agree that there's little point in my discussing this with you, though for
different reasons.
--
Joe User
Linonut
>As you know, I didn't say anything about what I know or don't know. You
>asked if I had a degree in CS. I replied that I don't have a degree in
>anything. You replied that the discussion was closed, commenting that you
>didn't have the time to educate me about the complexities of operating
>systems (even though we were only talking about DOS).
Here's an interesting article on BeOS/Linux/Windoze, concerning
why Linux won't make it on the desktop.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/21410.html
"At the LinuxWorldExpo panel discussion Jeremy Allison made few people
comfortable with his point that unless you break the client monopoly, "your
alternative infrastructure is irrelevant,"
"Very few OEMs can afford not to offer Windows, and while their freedom to offer
alternatives is dictated to by the Beast, the alternatives will languish."
Don't need a degree to grok this karma.
Chris
--
UNIX... Software for the *agile* business
Mark Kent
The answer was, of course, that Microsoft do have control of the selling of
that commodity. And they do exercise that control.
--
Mark Kent
Take out the ham to mail me.
T. Max Devlin
[...]
>Now, at least so far, the government has not granted Microsoft a legal monopoly,
>and I surely hope that they never do. So, scratch def #2 from our discussion.
One quick point (great post, Cary): The U.S. Government does not grant
legal monopolies to anyone. It regulates industries with extremely high
barriers to entry such as power and gas. There are no 'legal
monopolies', in the US, at least, and never have been. The railroads
thought they had one, and AT&T did too, and they were both shot down
solidly when they tried to make that claim in court.
[...]
Mark Kent
John - you're so generous allowing other people to have discussions on
this public group. That's really nice of you. Although I recall you
told me I wasn't allowed to reply to a post an amazing 11 days old.
Shame you're not quite so liberal there. And then there's your incredible
view that someone without a degree is not work speaking to. I guess
you're quite junior in your role?
Have you every studied anything about team dynamics?
John Saunders
news:ack0n9...@192.168.1.1...
Actually, I usually work in teams with members of widely-varying
experiences. I prefer it that way. But in those cases, I'm talking to people
face-to-face. I can take aside the two summer interns, for instance, and go
over basics for a few hours over lunch. I can take the time to get into
esoterics with a subject-area expert - and can pretend I understand what
he's talking about.
But in this case, I have no idea who you are. I also know for a fact that
I'm not nearly as good in written communication to strangers as I am
face-to-face.
So it's not that you're not worth talking to, it's just that I know I'm not
a good enough communicator to actually communicate with you. I'm sorry
that's true, and I consider it _my_ fault, not yours.
I'm sorry if I made it sound like it was due to your lack of a degree.
Instead, it was due to my lack of ability to communicate to someone lacking
the CS background.
--
John Saunders
j...@ma.ultranet.com
Erik Funkenbusch
> Said Cary L. Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 02 Sep 2001
> [...]
> >Now, at least so far, the government has not granted Microsoft a legal
monopoly,
> >and I surely hope that they never do. So, scratch def #2 from our
discussion.
>
> One quick point (great post, Cary): The U.S. Government does not grant
> legal monopolies to anyone. It regulates industries with extremely high
> barriers to entry such as power and gas. There are no 'legal
> monopolies', in the US, at least, and never have been. The railroads
> thought they had one, and AT&T did too, and they were both shot down
> solidly when they tried to make that claim in court.
I would think that you, of all people, Max would challenge Cary's claim that
the dictionary definition of a Monopoly is the same as the Legal one.
Ed Allen
Cary L. Brown <cary...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>
>His point, IN ONE LINE IN ONE POST IN A RESPONSE, and which you have latched
>onto with wild abandon it seems, was that when company sets forward to obtain an
>unusually (even controlling) market share, establishes that anything less than
>that is "failure," AND THEN COMMITS ITSELF TO DOING ANYTHING, LEGAL OR NOT, TO
>AVOID SUCH "FAILURE," well, honestly, I gotta agree with him on that point.
>But, he left that last (bold) section out... and that's why you keep harping on
>it, I think. That last part is implied, but not explicitely stated, in his
>statement. If he says, now, that this is what he was getting at, will you
>PUH-LEASE stop gnawing on that one little bone???
>
trying to debug a Windows problem.
You cannot know what the assumption being made behind the veil is
but you know that if you could hit upon the precise literal phrase
the actual point could be addressed and you could move past the hang
up.
I just do not normally think of human beings as 'bloody literal
minded' like machines.
>
>Fair enough, and probably true. But, again, ultimately irrelevant in the topic
>about COMPUTER SYSTEM VENDORS having the option to sell multi-boot systems.
>After all, the consumer who doesn't want this feature would probalby not buy a
>computer with it, and if they did, they probably would never use it. It should
>be up to the VENDOR to determine what they sell and to whom, depending on what
>the market requests.
>
At this point I realized that 'activation' and 'dual boot' would
mean that people would start using whatever else they bought the
moment that XP and future software deactivates itself because it
would still be functional.
MS depends on those contracts. Without them Aunt Tilly will realize
that they really can get by, if not totally enjoy, life without
monopoly crapware and MS knows that OEMs would quickly address
whatever Aunt Tilly feels she needs without further input from MS.
The Court could even let XP be deployed as long as it invalidates
those 'no dual boot' restrictions and MS sales will plummet the
moment XP begins to deactivate itself.
If the Court does invalidate those clauses then we can expect
'activation' to become history as quickly as MS can deploy a new
"service pack".
billwg
"Mark S Bilk" <ma...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote in message
news:LaNi7.1094$aC1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Bootloader as Trade Secret
>
> So why aren't there any dual-boot computers for sale? The
> answer lies in the nature of the relationship Microsoft
> maintains with hardware vendors... You and I can't read the license
because Microsoft
> classifies it as a "trade secret."
That is the stuff of urban legends to be sure, i.e. the truth cannot be
shown because it is a "secret". In an internet environment where you can
find out how to build an atomic bomb, it seems kind of lame to suggest that
no one would ever leak the "secret" Terms and Conditions to the world at
large, even cleansed of its origins. Which leads to the next issue:
>
> The essence of the government's antitrust beef with Microsoft
> is that the company limits competition by leveraging its
> dominant position in the marketplace (it's important to
> remember that monopolies are not illegal -- abusing them is).
> To prove its case, the government focused on the browser wars
> and the harm done to Netscape by Microsoft's inclusion of a
> free web browser in the operating system.
>
The essence of the government's remaining case is that Microsoft has
maintained their monopoly position by means of contracts with OEMs and
others that are in restraint of trade. One element of that is the refusal
of Microsoft to allow the removal of the IE logo and went so far as to
examine the packing of IE and Windows shell methods in the same DLL.
Somehow, the government, who certainly had access to the "secret" license
agreements and terms, decided that quibbling over a logo or DLL structure
was more egregious than an outright ban on using a competitors product in
conjunction with Windows? That seems to strain one's ability to believe!
Such an obvious flaw leads to:
>
> The burning question, of course, is why Boies and Klein didn't
> want Gassée to testify on the bootloader issue, especially when
> it could have substantially helped their case? The answer
> provided to Gassée was that the case was by then already too
> well established. Including the bootloader issue would have
> meant rewriting many of the arguments and calling in a new
> collection of witnesses. In other words, it wasn't convenient
> for the U.S. government to get to the meat of the matter. It
> would have been too much of a hassle to address Microsoft's
> anticompetitive behavior in its purest form. In addition, no PC
> OEM was willing to testify on bootloader issues. And why would
> they? The threat of losing favor with Microsoft easily would
> have outweighed any potential benefit from being able to
> preload the unproven Be operating system alongside Windows on
> their machines. Finally, Be didn't have the brand recognition
> that Netscape did; Netscape made for a much better poster
> child.
>
Now that suffices to placate the choir, perhaps, but it seems woefully short
of the mark in regard to the facts. The government had access to the
"secret" agreement terms during the discovery phase of the trial, long
before the res was set. And the government introduced new charges on
several occasions after the original case was filed. So we are left with
the unexplained failure of the DOJ to see such a plain violation and are
left with the thought that Boies didn't have e-mail as reason enough for the
oversight!
I'd like to see the real thing!
Peter Hayes
<hypersnip fore and aft>
> MS doesn't allow OEM's to create a situation in which the
> end-user can become confused about MS's product. End of story. Of course
> that also achieves the side-effect of not allowing consumers to choose
> between multiple OS's on the same machine, but that's just that... a
> side-effect.
Perhaps "MS doesn't allow OEM's to create a situation in which
the end-user can become confused about MS's product" because the
only "confusion" in the mind of the end-user would be how awful
MS's product is compared with most of the other products an OEM
might offer.
I think you've got intention and side-effect reversed here.
The intention is to not allow OEMs to offer multiple OS's on the
same machine, and the side-effect is that customers don't have the
opportunity to experience other OSs, so can't "become confused" - as
if a customer ordering a dual/multiple boot machine is likely to become
"confused" anyway, since by your own admission elsewhere in this thread
customers using Linux (and by extension most other OSs) are more
intellegent than the lowest common denominator Windows is apparantly
aimed at, and can therefore cope with the concept of multiple OSs
and the "confusion" thus generated.
Peter