Where to download free Fujitsu COBOL compiler
Fim
compiler, version 3, myabe also 3.5 from adtools.com, but not today.
Does anybody know where to get it? I will try that compiler together
with the product "GUI SreenIO" from Norcom to build a GUI-application
from my Dos-application.
/Fim W.
Alistair
You might be better off going to the microfocus net express personal
edition v5.1 and downloading theirs as it comes with its own gui
screen builder.
The Fujitsu compiler was well hidden on their web site. A search of
this newsgroup should find the last posting to point to the freebie.
Fim
No, I don´t want to use .net.
A search of this newsgroup for free Fujitsu COBOL gives no result of
value.
/Fim W.
me
news:28b15e8a-dbca-48ef...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
/Fim W.
You don't have to use the .NET components of MF Personal COBOL, just load
NETEXPRESS only
Rene_Surop
> No, I don´t want to use .net.
> A search of this newsgroup for free Fujitsu COBOL gives no result of
> value.
>
> /Fim W.
MF NetExpress product can be downloaded from;
http://www.microfocus.com/Resources/Communities/Academic/shop/index.asp
Fim
Thanks, but it is not for commercial use.
/Fim W
William M. Klein
Well, actually, when it was first provided (in 1996 or so) it could be used
for anything, but for the last decade or so it was explicitly posted with
"restrictions" saying that it was not for commercial use.
Having said that, I couldn't find it anymore on the web either. I am
watching this thread to see if anyone can still find it.
The last (a while ago) page that I had was:
http://www.adtools.com/download/v3starter/index.htm
but that now gets a "page not found" message.
"Fim" <fim.wa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b005267a-e67d-4b10...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Pete Dashwood
> The Fujitsu V3 compiler was NOT for commercial use either.
>
> Well, actually, when it was first provided (in 1996 or so) it could
> be used for anything, but for the last decade or so it was explicitly
> posted with "restrictions" saying that it was not for commercial use.
I received it (for free...) in 1996, as you noted. I developed a commercial
system with it using PowerCOBOL and it is running to this day.
(This, as Bill noted, did not violate the license at the time.)
Originally, Fujitsu marketed it into the vacuum created by the withdrawal of
support for Micro Focus Visoc, and I was one of the Micro Focus customers
who changed to Fujitsu at that time.
I found the product to be excellent and took out maintenance and updated as
new versions became available.
By the time version 5 arrived, it was a pretty good development environment,
although the IDE has always been "primitive" compared to Eclipse or Visual
Studio.
It was in version 6 that everything turned to custard. Fujitsu (USA), later
to become Alchemy, decided that piracy was a major concern (I remain
unconvinced to this day; I was talking to a number of Fujitsu customers and
I never met one who was making illegal copies for supply to someone else;
for the most part, their user base was honest COBOL developers for whom not
having a backup put their businesses at risk...) and implemented an insane
system of registration using Casper on a remote server. Although this was
supposed to be helpful for users, inasmuch as the system would allow you 30
days to download and use a copy of the software if your main implementation
went down, the process involved was really unwieldy. For users outside the
continental USA where time differences matter and you can't just dial an
0800 number, it was frightening. What if the Casper server was down or
wouldn't recognise your registration? Added to that, the procedure for
transferring a licence to a different machine was just plain silly. (It
required a floppy disk...how long since you saw one of those...? :-))
There was unrest amongst the troops and I recall a heated debate in this
forum about the the new licensing. Fujitsu remained unmoved and impervious
and some of us, who actually loved the products and had been fiercely loyal
to them, started thinking about alternatives. (The ironic thng is that,
despite all the complicated rigmarole with Casper Registration, the whole
process is NOT secure, and copies of the software can be easily made by
determined and informed people. Alchemy should really revise this
registration system and make it fair and reasonable for rveryone concerned.
Modern technology and software innovation has overtaken the Neanderthal
mindset that dreamed up Casper.)
For me, nails started being hammered into the coffin when they revamped
their support and fired guys like Lee Unterreiner (who was one of the most
outstanding support people I have ever seen anywhere), as a cost-cutting
measure.
The final nails went in when I found myself on a customer site to whom I
had recommended the products, and there were undocumented errors in the
software (PowerCOBOL), incoherent dialogs produced in pidgin English, and
the support was imbecilic. The process of getting support was pathetic and
unnecessarily convoluted, and when you finally got attended to, the person
was incompetent. They finally offered to go back to Japan on it and it would
take three weeks. As the client system needed to be operational in 5 days,
this was unacceptable. I worked day and night with the local team, under
extreme pressure, and we rewrote thousands of lines of PowerCOBOL into
NetCOBOL COM components and managed to achieve the target date, but I NEVER
want to be in that situation again. I felt betrayed and embarrassed because
I had recommended them. As a result, I cancelled my maintenance. (The
actual support was a joke and, by then I think we were on version 6 and the
upgrades weren't implementing anything noticeable... it was like they ran
out of ideas.)
The interment came when I tried to buy their COBOL for .NET compiler and was
treated with rudeness and shabbiness. The attitude was"You're a small time
COBOL developer so you're not going anywhere. You have no options and we'll
deal with you when it suits us, on terms that suit us." I don't know many
people for whom that would sit well, and for me it just meant an immediate
free download of C# and Visual Studio.
It also indirectly led to the development of the PRIMA Migration Toolset
which is designed to help others get out from under, just as I did.
Every cloud has a silver lining ... :-).
I was hopeful that when Alchemy was announced it would be a new start and
things would be better.
Instead, I have heard from several sources that maintenance is still
dreadful (OK, hearsay is not evidence...) and now we find that all free and
Academic versions of the compiler have been pulled. (My search was fuitless
just like everybody else's and the Downloads section of the Alchemy site
requires prior registration (perfectly fair and reasonable), but there is no
indication that even if you do this you can get the free V3 compiler.
To be fair, the current Alchemy focus is on COBOL for .NET and the tools
designed to entice mainframe sites onto .NET, (like the appallingly named,
but apparently very useful, NEO-KICKS :-)) so I guess it is understandable
that they don't want to be supporting or dealing with enquiries on obsolete
versions of the NetCOBOL compiler. Nevertheless, they could have left
version 3 with a disclaimer and let people use it for experimentation or
even just having a look at COBOL. Maybe they figure the Open Source COBOL
movement has that covered...
It looks to me like a COBOL company that has no commitment to COBOL (except
maybe .NET COBOL)
If that is the case, then long term, I think the strategy is flawed.
Once people move to a platform like .NET (no matter which vehicle they
arrive in), they very soon start to realise the advantages of this approach.
Before too long it becomes apparent that COBOL and COBOL approaches are not
the best way to do things in this environment (even though you CAN use it),
and they simply move to more facile .NET languages.
It is also important to remember that neither Fujitsu nor Alchemy are
OBLIGED to offer a free compiler. Fujitsu did it to try and penetrate a
market that was dominated by Micro Focus. There was never any guarantee that
they would CONTINUE doing it.
Micro Focus offer a free version because they are a company committed to
COBOL and they realise that by making access to COBOL easy, it is good for
the long term future of their business. I admire them, but I don't think
that is where the future is.
I guess time will tell... In the meantime there is a lesson here for all of
us: If a vendor offers something free it is probably worth getting hold of
it. Certainly, it is unlikely to leave you any worse off... Don't just
assume it will always be there...
(I see this in the same way as the free C#/VB.Net/C++/VS express downloads
from Microsoft... get it while you can; you don't know how long it will be
available for... a change of management policy or an analyst decides the
marketing objective has been achieved and it could be pulled overnight...)
>
> Having said that, I couldn't find it anymore on the web either. I am
> watching this thread to see if anyone can still find it.
>
I located a number of links to it but none of them worked. Alchemy is not
showing it or ANY free download that I could find...
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
Rene_Surop
> (I see this in the same way as the free C#/VB.Net/C++/VS express downloads
> from Microsoft... get it while you can; you don't know how long it will be
> available for... a change of management policy or an analyst decides the
> marketing objective has been achieved and it could be pulled overnight...)
>
Had an idea Pete. It is a long shot though, if in any case a Cobol
programmer would adopt Microsoft C#/VS, had to code on this
platform... BUT instead of completing on running pure C#, the C# code
invokes a Cobol program for the logic/data side. Could it be done?
It could be silly I guess but most of my codes are in Cobol COM which
can be invoked using C#, and I do not want to change them. Using a
Cobol COM on web application requires mastering HTML/CSS coding...
while MS .NET framework could do it in a GUI on web apps.
Albert Richheimer
You might want to buy a second-hand copy of "Teach Yourself COBOL in 24
Hours", by Thane Hubbell. Something like this, for about $26.39:
http://www.amazon.com/Sams-Teach-Yourself-COBOL-Hours/dp/0672314533
There is a CD with a copy of Fujitsu COBOL V3 included.
Albert
Pete Dashwood
>> (I see this in the same way as the free C#/VB.Net/C++/VS express
>> downloads from Microsoft... get it while you can; you don't know how
>> long it will be available for... a change of management policy or an
>> analyst decides the marketing objective has been achieved and it
>> could be pulled overnight...)
>>
>
> Had an idea Pete. It is a long shot though, if in any case a Cobol
> programmer would adopt Microsoft C#/VS, had to code on this
> platform... BUT instead of completing on running pure C#, the C# code
> invokes a Cobol program for the logic/data side. Could it be done?
Sure. I do it all the time :-) It is very simple. You simply register the
COM component on your system, then add the COBOL COM component as a
reference to the C# project in Visual Studio, and VS automatically wraps it
with InterOP services (it will run as unmanaged code, so you need to make
sure it is thoroughly debugged and not likely to throw bounds errors etc.).
You can specify whether you want it shared in the usual way or isolated to
this particular application. From then on, IntelliSense recognizes your
component and its properties and methods, just as it does with any
component.
>
> It could be silly I guess but most of my codes are in Cobol COM which
> can be invoked using C#, and I do not want to change them.
It is far from silly; it is very wise. By isolating your functionality into
COM components you have guaranteed their future, and saved yourself the
trouble of having to re-invent this functionality every time you need it
somewhere. You can plug these components into C# very easily, because C# is
intended for component based programming (it supports COM and it is easy to
write components in C# or to run components written in other languages in
C#), and it will allow components in ANY language, that are COM compliant,
to be run just as easily as described above.
I was interested to note that with components written in Fujitsu NetCOBOL
and PowerCOBOL, InterOP services automatically includes the RTS and wraps
that as well, to make sure the object can function at run time. (You don't
need to separately install the RTS on the client if you specify component
isolation). It is all simple, seamless, and very elegant.
I'm not sure how you would get on with the Micro Focus runtime licensing if
you distribute an application that uses their runtime, as an isolated COM
component. Theoretically, they could charge you for every machine it is
installed on, even if that machine was already running their RTS...
There are no such fees with C# or Fujitsu NetCOBOL so everything is much
easier.
>Using a
> Cobol COM on web application requires mastering HTML/CSS coding...
Well, not really... You need knowledge of JavaScript (or VBScript) or ASP
so you can instantiate the component (usually during the page "LOAD" event
...)
...
var obj = new ActiveXObject("createActiveXcontrol.ProgID");
...
...but you don't need to be a master of HTML/CSS to embed a component into
JavaScript on the page.
ASP lets you do it almost anywhere on the page, but the created object only
has page scope, a soon as you leave the page, it is gone...
<%
Set objCool =Server.CreateObject("ProgID")
%>
Personally, I have kind of grown through each of these (HTML/CSS/JavaScript,
ASP) until today I use ASP.NET and write C# code-behinds so (almost)
everything runs on the server. I still use AJAX sometimes, (which generates
client side JavaScript), but I am looking at Silverlight as a better
replacement. Instantiating a COM component in code-behind is just a normal
C# statement to get an object instance...
...
CoolClassComponent objCool = new CoolClassComponent();
...
The code is JIT compiled as the page is being served; it is all very clever
and generally very efficient, although there can be more load on the server,
and more return trips, than if client side code is used.
However, it is much more secure than using client side code, as the server
has far better protection and layered defences than the client machne
generally has...
> while MS .NET framework could do it in a GUI on web apps.
Exactly. You can present your web form and support it with a C# code-behind,
using the full facilities of the .NET platform, without being limited by
JavaScript or ASP... (The COBOL21 web site is written entirely in ASP.NET
and uses C# code-behinds for most of the pages.)
Richard
It is not true that it required a floppy disk, though this was the
usual mechanism, it could be done to any medium accessible to both
machines. eg a USB drive.
Version 3 was initially for Windows 3.x (I have a CD here) and was
later implemented for Windows 95. Apparently it can be made to install
and run on XP though it can fail to do so.
I can quite understand why Alchemy don't bother with it anymore.
> It looks to me like a COBOL company that has no commitment to COBOL (except
> maybe .NET COBOL)
# NetCOBOL for .NET
# NetCOBOL for Linux
# NetCOBOL for SPARC Architecture
# NetCOBOL for Windows
# NetCOBOL for HPUX
> If that is the case, then long term, I think the strategy is flawed.
>
> Once people move to a platform like .NET (no matter which vehicle they
> arrive in), they very soon start to realise the advantages of this approach.
> Before too long it becomes apparent that COBOL and COBOL approaches are not
> the best way to do things in this environment (even though you CAN use it),
> and they simply move to more facile .NET languages.
>
> It is also important to remember that neither Fujitsu nor Alchemy are
> OBLIGED to offer a free compiler. Fujitsu did it to try and penetrate a
> market that was dominated by Micro Focus. There was never any guarantee that
> they would CONTINUE doing it.
>
> Micro Focus offer a free version because they are a company committed to
> COBOL and they realise that by making access to COBOL easy, it is good for
> the long term future of their business. I admire them, but I don't think
> that is where the future is.
>
> I guess time will tell... In the meantime there is a lesson here for all of
> us: If a vendor offers something free it is probably worth getting hold of
> it. Certainly, it is unlikely to leave you any worse off... Don't just
> assume it will always be there...
>
> (I see this in the same way as the free C#/VB.Net/C++/VS express downloads
> from Microsoft... get it while you can; you don't know how long it will be
> available for... a change of management policy or an analyst decides the
> marketing objective has been achieved and it could be pulled overnight...)
>
Exactly. Free Internet Explorer was to drive Netscape out of business,
Free MSN (the original '95) was to kill the internet. Free C# was to
kill Java. Bung (or something) is to kill Google.
Fortunately Microsoft have been failing at many things because when
their market share is high the free stuff stops and they rake in the
loot.
Richard
You may be better to consider OpenCOBOL.
Pete Dashwood
The documentation which arrived as printed paper notes with version 6,
stated that a floppy disk should be used. There was no mention of any other
device. I never tried it with a USB drive but I'll take your word for it.
This is the "flagship" product and most of the other tools require you to
buy it.
> # NetCOBOL for .NET
These are the "second class citizens" and poor relations for which you will
pay annual maintenance and receive very little. It isn't like they are
implementing the 2002 COBOL standard. Since version 6 most of the "new
releases" have been about better documentation, and fixes to obscure bugs
you would be unlikely to encounter anyway. There hasn't been innovation of
new features, as far as I can tell., however, I haven't had a lot to do with
later releases and am going on what others tell me.
> # NetCOBOL for Linux
> # NetCOBOL for SPARC Architecture
> # NetCOBOL for Windows
> # NetCOBOL for HPUX
My own experience is with the Windows product and it has always been
excellent. But I don't think there is a committment to update any of these.
That is what prompted my comment.
(If I'm wrong about this and they are actually working to implement more of
the 2002 standard, I unreservedly apologise to Alchemy.)
I won't comment on the other points, but free C# was never designed to "kill
Java" (although that was probably a hoped for side effect...). And there is
no past tense; C# is STILL free and has been for 7 years. I believe the idea
was to get people quickly onto .NET and it has largely succeeded in doing
that. So we could expect, having largely achieved the market objective,
they would pull it. So far, they haven't.
>
> Fortunately Microsoft have been failing at many things because when
> their market share is high the free stuff stops and they rake in the
> loot.
I'm having a little difficulty with "raking in the loot" and "failure"...
perhaps we have different definitions of "success" :-)
So their market share for Visual Studio and C# isn't high? I did some
searches... In the last 2 years, growth of C# use has been phenomenal and
now exceeds both Java and VB. However, there is no clear picture I could
find, and different sources have different views. The only conclusion I
could make was that C# and PHP are growing strongly, while Java seems to be
in decline.
Some examples...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9884500-16.html
http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
(Tiobe is interesting... it shows COBOL as 23 in the language list, and Java
as supreme ruler, but on a declining trend.)
Pete
Paul
Ah- this is where you want to talk to Dan Meyers out at Legacy-J. I
understand they
are looking into this exact model, though I do not have any "insider"
information about
it.
Legacy-J markets the PerCOBOL product that converts COBOL to Java and
runs that way.
Nice product, and they do have a downloadable try and buy product.
-Paul
Richard
It works with a network share too. I had it on my laptopn with no
floppy drive.
[snip]
>
> > Version 3 was initially for Windows 3.x (I have a CD here) and was
> > later implemented for Windows 95. Apparently it can be made to install
> > and run on XP though it can fail to do so.
>
> > I can quite understand why Alchemy don't bother with it anymore.
>
> >> It looks to me like a COBOL company that has no commitment to COBOL
> >> (except maybe .NET COBOL)
>
This is the "flagship" product and most of the other tools require you
to
buy it.
> > # NetCOBOL for .NET
>
Certainly they have written a bunch of stuff to move 'legacy' to
Windows. Presumably they make more money in that environment.
> These are the "second class citizens" and poor relations for which you will
> pay annual maintenance and receive very little.
Why do you think that they are '2nd class' ? Is it just because you
have no interest in them ? I bought Cobol for Linux (when it was on
special) and have not paid maintenance yet have received updates to
7.1, 7.2 and 7.3.
SPARC is certainly a focus for Fujitsu because they sell SPARC systems
and even co-operate in chip development (via the UK ex-ICL branch).
There have been new versions of SPARC and HPUX but I don't follow
these closely.
> It isn't like they are
> implementing the 2002 COBOL standard.
Is anyone ? Is there a .NET of 2002 ?
> Since version 6 most of the "new
> releases" have been about better documentation, and fixes to obscure bugs
> you would be unlikely to encounter anyway. There hasn't been innovation of
> new features, as far as I can tell., however, I haven't had a lot to do with
> later releases and am going on what others tell me.
>
> > # NetCOBOL for Linux
> > # NetCOBOL for SPARC Architecture
> > # NetCOBOL for Windows
> > # NetCOBOL for HPUX
Each Linux 7.x have had new features. The old Fujitu site listed the
enhancements which was useful.
> My own experience is with the Windows product and it has always been
> excellent. But I don't think there is a committment to update any of these.
> That is what prompted my comment.
>
> (If I'm wrong about this and they are actually working to implement more of
> the 2002 standard, I unreservedly apologise to Alchemy.)
>
>
>
>
> > Exactly. Free Internet Explorer was to drive Netscape out of business,
> > Free MSN (the original '95) was to kill the internet. Free C# was to
> > kill Java. Bung (or something) is to kill Google.
>
> I won't comment on the other points, but free C# was never designed to "kill
> Java" (although that was probably a hoped for side effect...). And there is
> no past tense; C# is STILL free and has been for 7 years. I believe the idea
> was to get people quickly onto .NET and it has largely succeeded in doing
> that. So we could expect, having largely achieved the market objective,
> they would pull it. So far, they haven't.
>
>
>
> > Fortunately Microsoft have been failing at many things because when
> > their market share is high the free stuff stops and they rake in the
> > loot.
>
> I'm having a little difficulty with "raking in the loot" and "failure"...
> perhaps we have different definitions of "success" :-)
Failures have been 'Bob', the original MSN. Zune, Danger/Sidekick,
XBox has never made any money, Playforsure, the original .NET stuff
(prior to what is known as .NET now). MS Mobile smartphones has around
5% market share and falling.
'Microsoft Live Search' failed, buying Yahoo failed (though that
probably saved MS from an expensive failure), Bing only gets 3-4% of
the market now though it was up to 10% and this is even when 'updates'
change the default search to Bing.
IE share is falling and IE6 is still the largest version (and Firefox
is > any IE version).
Vista 'failed' in that >60% of Windows is still XP or 2000.
MS ties up OEMs by bullying them (ie stringent discount dependencies)
and this is where MS drags in most of its revenue.
> So their market share for Visual Studio and C# isn't high? I did some
> searches... In the last 2 years, growth of C# use has been phenomenal and
> now exceeds both Java and VB. However, there is no clear picture I could
> find, and different sources have different views. The only conclusion I
> could make was that C# and PHP are growing strongly, while Java seems to be
> in decline.
>
> Some examples...
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9884500-16.html
That is based on _book_ sales. People who don't know a language buy a
book on it so the 'massive growth' is based on people who _don't_ know
it. Of course Java book sales fall off because it is a mature product.
Anyway JavaScript book sales are growing faster than C# and will soon
overtake it. This is probably due to JavaScript being not only for Web
2 and AJAX but also for Moblin, Android, Palm Pre, and many other
systems.
> http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
>
> (Tiobe is interesting... it shows COBOL as 23 in the language list, and Java
> as supreme ruler, but on a declining trend.)
Java is 18% and C# is 6th with 4.4%, around the same as Python and
PERL. C has twice C#'s growth rate and PHP has triple C#'s growth.
Your comment is just spin. Yes, 4% market share for C# is _not_ high.
Looking at the graph on that page the end of 2006 line for C# shows
about 3.5%, 4 years later it is 4.4% That is hardly "phenomenal".
HeyBub
>>
>
> Exactly. Free Internet Explorer was to drive Netscape out of business,
> Free MSN (the original '95) was to kill the internet. Free C# was to
> kill Java. Bung (or something) is to kill Google.
>
> Fortunately Microsoft have been failing at many things because when
> their market share is high the free stuff stops and they rake in the
> loot.
Hmm. Internet Explorer is still free. MSN is still free. Bing is free. I
don't know about C#. Who gives a fig about Netscape?
Windows 7 is actually cheaper that Windows 3.0 (in constant dollars).
If you're worried that a Microsoft monopoly will gouge the consumer, don't.
In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is good for the consumer!
Even the poster boy for evil monopolies, Standard Oil, managed to drive down
the price of Kerosene from $3.00/gallon to 5�/gallon in only three years.
The people who sold whale oil were pissed, but for the rest of the country,
night became day.
docd...@panix.com
HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is good for the consumer!
This sounds remarkably like 'a free market is good because it allows for
competition between companies from which the consumer benefits and leads
to a free-market monopoly where no competition exists and that is the best
of all.'
DD
tlmfru
HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:8M-> If you're worried
that a Microsoft monopoly will gouge the consumer, don't.
> In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is good for the consumer!
You can't possibly be serious! Hasn't Microsoft been fined 1.5 billion
euros for anti-competitive behaviour? And haven't they just been enjoined
from selling WORD because they've infringed upon a a patent for XML?
> Even the poster boy for evil monopolies, Standard Oil, managed to drive
down
> the price of Kerosene from $3.00/gallon to 5�/gallon in only three years.
>
Was Standard Oil the only company involved?
PL
HeyBub
> HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:8M-> If you're
> worried that a Microsoft monopoly will gouge the consumer, don't.
>> In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is good for the
>> consumer!
>
> You can't possibly be serious! Hasn't Microsoft been fined 1.5
> billion euros for anti-competitive behaviour? And haven't they just
> been enjoined from selling WORD because they've infringed upon a a
> patent for XML?
Yes, Microsoft got pounded by the European courts.
But look at your claim: "... anti-competitive behavior." That's not
anti-CONSUMER behavior. MS got flogged for including a media player with XP
to the competitive disadvantage of other companies that wanted to SELL a
media player. From the consumer's perspective, FREE is better than PAID.
As for being prohibited from including XML, there is no way the CONSUMER
benefits from that sanction.
I stand by my statement: "In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is
good for the consumer." Conversely, most government-sanction monopolies
leave much to be desired (cable TV, most roads, water distribution or other
utilities, and soon, the internet).
>
>
>> Even the poster boy for evil monopolies, Standard Oil, managed to
>> drive down the price of Kerosene from $3.00/gallon to 5�/gallon in
>> only three years.
>>
>
> Was Standard Oil the only company involved?
>
Involved in selling Kerosene? Uh, probably. The original Standard Oil Trust
was first organized to take advantage of the burgeoning switch to Kerosene
(from whale oil).
tlmfru
HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
> tlmfru wrote:
> > HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:8M-> If you're
> > worried that a Microsoft monopoly will gouge the consumer, don't.
> >> In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is good for the
> >> consumer!
> >
> > You can't possibly be serious! Hasn't Microsoft been fined 1.5
> > billion euros for anti-competitive behaviour? And haven't they just
> > been enjoined from selling WORD because they've infringed upon a a
> > patent for XML?
>
> Yes, Microsoft got pounded by the European courts.
>
> But look at your claim: "... anti-competitive behavior." That's not
> anti-CONSUMER behavior. MS got flogged for including a media player with
XP
> to the competitive disadvantage of other companies that wanted to SELL a
> media player. From the consumer's perspective, FREE is better than PAID.
>
And their motive? To prevent other companies from competing at all. In
>>every<< case the consumer benefits from having a choice (I believe that's
what capitalism is all about). Listen, man: if I have a monopoly on
something I'll charge what I feel like and if you don't like it, tough. Nor
do I care if I'm providing a crappy whatever-it-is. You gotta buy from me!
> As for being prohibited from including XML, there is no way the CONSUMER
> benefits from that sanction.
Only that the law must be followed.
>
> I stand by my statement: "In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly
is
> good for the consumer." Conversely, most government-sanction monopolies
> leave much to be desired (cable TV, most roads, water distribution or
other
> utilities, and soon, the internet).
>
Well, when the telephone company in Manitoba (MTS, a government monopoly)
was sold to private enterprise, the cost of residential service quickly
doubled. There is "choice" now but they all charge about the same. The
city owned its own power company (sold to the provincial government power
co,. since, due to the difficulty of raising money for upgrades etc.). the
base rate for power remained the same for SIXTY-TWO years. The city has
owned its own water supply since 1919. the rates have grown only slowly
over all that time. There is some talk of entering into a 3P deal just now
but nobody is talking about what will happen to prices. Service in all
cases has been exemplary. You can certainly point out examples of badly-run
government monopolies, but I can point out well-run ones.
Given the recent market catastrophe, if you can state with a straight face
and reasonable conviction that private enterprise is always the way to go
I'll buy you a beer. Private enterprise works as long as the profits aren't
threatened. Then they go jetting off to the government for handouts!
PL
Richard
> tlmfru wrote:
> > HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:8M-> If you're
> > worried that a Microsoft monopoly will gouge the consumer, don't.
> >> In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is good for the
> >> consumer!
>
> > You can't possibly be serious! Hasn't Microsoft been fined 1.5
> > billion euros for anti-competitive behaviour? And haven't they just
> > been enjoined from selling WORD because they've infringed upon a a
> > patent for XML?
>
> Yes, Microsoft got pounded by the European courts.
>
> But look at your claim: "... anti-competitive behavior." That's not
> anti-CONSUMER behavior.
It is anti-consumer in that MS wields its monopoly by tying OEMs and
retailers in almost exclusive deals, most often with 'discounts' that
only get applied if the OEM does as MS 'asks'.
This means that the consumer is restricted in choice, usually they
cannot buy a computer without paying money to Microsoft.
> MS got flogged for including a media player with XP
> to the competitive disadvantage of other companies that wanted to SELL a
> media player. From the consumer's perspective, FREE is better than PAID.
Not necessarily. MS would like to drive all other media players out of
business, like they tried to drive Netscape out of business with
'free' IE. MS would like to control access to movies and other
programs by having the only player and silverlight and using DRM to
control access. They could then take a cut of all movie viewing
revenue.
It is not about 'free stuff' it is about control of the industry and
revenue.
>
> As for being prohibited from including XML, there is no way the CONSUMER
> benefits from that sanction.
Just because you fail to understand does not mean there is no harm.
Microsoft stole another company's invention (and not for the first
time by far). That reduced the company's revenue so it may close. This
reduces consumer choice and reduces innovation.
>
> I stand by my statement: "In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is
> good for the consumer." Conversely, most government-sanction monopolies
> leave much to be desired (cable TV, most roads, water distribution or other
> utilities, and soon, the internet).
>
>
>
> >> Even the poster boy for evil monopolies, Standard Oil, managed to
> >> drive down the price of Kerosene from $3.00/gallon to 5¢/gallon in
> >> only three years.
>
> > Was Standard Oil the only company involved?
>
> Involved in selling Kerosene? Uh, probably. The original Standard Oil Trust
> was first organized to take advantage of the burgeoning switch to Kerosene
> (from whale oil).
The reduction in price was not the result of Standard Oil but was
because oil drilling boomed when oil was $20 a barrel and the
resulting glut dropped the price to 10cents a barrel.
Production costs of kerosene plummeted and Standard Oil had to reduce
its own selling price because it was not a 100% monopoly. However,
what it did that was anti-trust was that it bought pipelines to
refineries it wanted to buy and then turned off the supply so the
company went bust.
"""To stimulate demand, the company sold or even gave away cheap lamps
and stoves."""
"""When independent companies tried to compete, Standard Oil quickly
cut prices--sometimes below cost--to drive them out of business. Then
Standard raised prices to recoup its losses."""
HeyBub
> HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fO2dnf57BobeA2nX...@earthlink.com...
>> tlmfru wrote:
>>> HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:8M-> If you're
>>> worried that a Microsoft monopoly will gouge the consumer, don't.
>>>> In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is good for the
>>>> consumer!
>>>
>>> You can't possibly be serious! Hasn't Microsoft been fined 1.5
>>> billion euros for anti-competitive behaviour? And haven't they just
>>> been enjoined from selling WORD because they've infringed upon a a
>>> patent for XML?
>>
>> Yes, Microsoft got pounded by the European courts.
>>
>> But look at your claim: "... anti-competitive behavior." That's not
>> anti-CONSUMER behavior. MS got flogged for including a media player
>> with XP to the competitive disadvantage of other companies that
>> wanted to SELL a media player. From the consumer's perspective, FREE
>> is better than PAID.
>>
>
> And their motive? To prevent other companies from competing at all.
> In
>>> every<< case the consumer benefits from having a choice (I believe
>>> that's
> what capitalism is all about).
Possibly, but the CONSUMER still benefits. Capitalism is NOT about choice.
There are three things that go into the creation of a product or service:
Capital, Labor, and Raw Materials. Capitalism is the PRIVATE control of the
first of these.
> Listen, man: if I have a monopoly on
> something I'll charge what I feel like and if you don't like it,
> tough. Nor do I care if I'm providing a crappy whatever-it-is. You
> gotta buy from me!
Show me one example of your fears being realized. Just one. It simply
doesn't happen as you describe.
In the case of Microsoft, their biggest competitor is Microsoft. If they
don't produce a better next-version, their revenue stream dries up! It is to
their advantage to create a better product at a lower price. Just in the
case of Standard Oil, they would make a greater profit by driving DOWN the
price of Kerosene, not inflating it.
Further, monopolies are sanctioned, even encouraged, by the United States
Constitution!
>
>
>> As for being prohibited from including XML, there is no way the
>> CONSUMER benefits from that sanction.
>
> Only that the law must be followed.
You keep trying to find SOME hook to show that monopoly power is bad. How is
following the law good (or bad) for the CONSUMER?
>
>>
>> I stand by my statement: "In virtually every case, a free-market
>> monopoly is good for the consumer." Conversely, most
>> government-sanction monopolies leave much to be desired (cable TV,
>> most roads, water distribution or other utilities, and soon, the
>> internet).
>>
>
> Well, when the telephone company in Manitoba (MTS, a government
> monopoly) was sold to private enterprise, the cost of residential
> service quickly doubled.
And the taxes that were going to subsidize the service either went away or
were diverted for other purposes. You did get a significant tax reduction,
didn't you?
>
> Given the recent market catastrophe, if you can state with a straight
> face and reasonable conviction that private enterprise is always the
> way to go I'll buy you a beer. Private enterprise works as long as
> the profits aren't threatened. Then they go jetting off to the
> government for handouts!
>
Let me turn it around to a simpler proposition: You show ME one enterprise
better run by the government than by private enterprise and I'll buy you a
baby bottle complete with teat.
But where does the blame lie in your example? To the companies asking for a
handout or to the government for providing it? The freedom to succeed goes
hand in hand with the freedom to fail. Take away one and you don't simply
remove the other, you kill freedom altogether.
The economist Harry Browne asserted that every dollar spent by the
government is a dollar of wealth destroyed and he spent several books
proving it. There is virtually NOTHING that the government does that cannot
be done cheaper by private enterprise (it IS the government's job to enforce
contracts and punish evil-doers, but not much else). How about police and
fire protection, you might ask? That's easy. In my town there are probably
twenty times the number of private security guards as there are cops and
recent tabulations show that 85% of the firefighters in the country are
volunteers. Most wars throughout history have been fought by mercenaries,
and so on.
George Will said the primary purpose of government is to protect the borders
and deliver the mail. Once it demonstrates that it can do those tasks
competently, we can rightly trust it with something else.
Richard
Nonsense. They have the OEMs tied up with contracts so that (almost)
all new machines ship with whatever new version of Windows MS dictates
regardless of merit. It that were not so then Vista would never have
been shipped and OEMs will still be shipping XP. The revenue stream is
locked in, at least for the next year.
They also conned the corporates and signed them up to 3 year contracts
in the very late 90s they shipped XP but those corporates got nothing
from the next 3 year contract.
Eventually the revenue stream will dry up.
> It is to
> their advantage to create a better product at a lower price.
They don't have a lower price. Certainly they do have a cheap 'Home
crippled' edition which is cheaper that XP Home but it is much more
than XP for Netbooks.
MS split the editions so that 'Home Basic' is roughly the price of XP
Home, but 'Home Premuium' is much more and the OEMs are 'encouraged'
to use that.
Vista was _not_ a 'better product' which is why it is still only ~20%
of Windows. Windows 7 is better than Vista (probably much better) but
many think that is it not better than XP SP3.
> Just in the
> case of Standard Oil, they would make a greater profit by driving DOWN the
> price of Kerosene, not inflating it.
>
No. Wrong. They drove down the cost of a barrel of oil (they didn't
have wells) and they drove down the cost of transport to themselves
with exclusive contracts. The price of kerosene fell, especially where
they were driving competitors out of business, but they made higher
profits.
> Further, monopolies are sanctioned, even encouraged, by the United States
> Constitution!
The US constitution is irrelevant to me. Anyway the anti-trust laws
are not against monopolies but are against the _abuse_ that monopolies
can wield. MS has been found guilty.
> >> As for being prohibited from including XML, there is no way the
> >> CONSUMER benefits from that sanction.
>
> > Only that the law must be followed.
>
> You keep trying to find SOME hook to show that monopoly power is bad. How is
> following the law good (or bad) for the CONSUMER?
Microsoft has been found guilty of not following the law.
Paul
> [vast amount of good stuff clipped out for space[
> Let me turn it around to a simpler proposition: You show ME one enterprise
> better run by the government than by private enterprise and I'll buy you a
> baby bottle complete with teat.
The Military, the Center for Disease Control, Negotiating Treaties,
making the states play nice with each other...
and it goes on and on even without the sarcasm. :)
>
>
> But where does the blame lie in your example? To the companies asking for a
> handout or to the government for providing it? The freedom to succeed goes
> hand in hand with the freedom to fail. Take away one and you don't simply
> remove the other, you kill freedom altogether.
You argued that Capitalism is the private control of capital. That
definition is insufficient.
Capitalism, since around the 17th century, has been more like private
control of the wealth
*and the means to create wealth* and *the means to control the wealth*.
There are certainly more considerations than that, and it is the reason
that many many
people believed the U.S. would fail back in revolutionary times.
Government, at least here in the U.S., is meant to be the check on
unbridled capitalism.
Sure, any individual can go out and make a fortune. Indeed in
revolutionary times, people
make fortunes selling slaves. I at least, do not want to go back to a
time when that was
considered a perfectly legitimate way to get rich quick.
Of course, I picked a rather horrifying example there, but you can find
other examples.
Even a brief study of the history of Standard Oil would present a
fairly good example of the
kinds of behavior we no longer tolerate as a society. I hesitate to
point out that the excesses
on Wall Street constitute another, not because I think they do not, but
because they are
far too recent to understand in context. We may have a decent
understanding of what really
happened to cause the economic catastrophe we are still in - in about 20 years.
>
> The economist Harry Browne asserted that every dollar spent by the
> government is a dollar of wealth destroyed and he spent several books
> proving it. There is virtually NOTHING that the government does that cannot
> be done cheaper by private enterprise (it IS the government's job to enforce
> contracts and punish evil-doers, but not much else). How about police and
> fire protection, you might ask? That's easy. In my town there are probably
> twenty times the number of private security guards as there are cops and
> recent tabulations show that 85% of the firefighters in the country are
> volunteers. Most wars throughout history have been fought by mercenaries,
> and so on.
MMM- I am not sure what your understanding of the U.S. military is, but it is
far closer to the Roman Legions than to Tilly's mercenaries.
Indeed, what you seem to be saying is to hire rent-a-cops to oppose
problems like North Korea. The Cold War might well have been fought,
with just as much success, by Pinkertons, but somehow, I really doubt it.
To some degree I do agree with you- we should be doing things like
telling illegal immigrants
that 20 years service in the U.S. military will earn them citizenship
and retirement. Or something
along those lines. It worked for Rome mind you.
>
> George Will said the primary purpose of government is to protect the borders
> and deliver the mail. Once it demonstrates that it can do those tasks
> competently, we can rightly trust it with something else.
Totally wrong view - Government is never going to be "good" at doing
much of anything.
It is just a tool that (1) makes some things possible and (2) does
those things better than
a dissenting group of individuals will.
This is something the current crop of country-club republicans have
lost sight of in their goal
of gaining and retaining power. They seek power for the sake of power,
not to preserve.
I do not even think they are conservatives any longer. The Democrats
have been known to
do the exact same thing, but have been stepped on enough by the
republicans lately that they
are more mindful of their purpose.
Just my own thinking.
-Paul
tlmfru
HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:aOCdna8BId_-> >>
> >> Yes, Microsoft got pounded by the European courts.
> >>
> >> But look at your claim: "... anti-competitive behavior." That's not
> >> anti-CONSUMER behavior. MS got flogged for including a media player
> >> with XP to the competitive disadvantage of other companies that
> >> wanted to SELL a media player. From the consumer's perspective, FREE
> >> is better than PAID.
> >>
Look, dolt, by your very own words there were other companies involved in
the market. Therefore MS did NOT have a monopoly at the time. If MS is as
benevolent as you seem to think, they would reduce the consumer cost of
their products to the cost of production; after all, FREE is better than
PAID.
> >
>
> Possibly, but the CONSUMER still benefits. Capitalism is NOT about choice.
> There are three things that go into the creation of a product or service:
> Capital, Labor, and Raw Materials. Capitalism is the PRIVATE control of
the
> first of these.
>
And the tax breaks, incentives, interest-free non-repayable loans from
government? Oil companies are paid bonuses to go out and drill exploratory
wells, did you know that?
> > Listen, man: if I have a monopoly on
> > something I'll charge what I feel like and if you don't like it,
> > tough. Nor do I care if I'm providing a crappy whatever-it-is. You
> > gotta buy from me!
>
> Show me one example of your fears being realized. Just one. It simply
> doesn't happen as you describe.
>
How about gasoline? Is there any other reason that the cost TO THE CONSUMER
nearly doubled before the recent crash when the cost of rpoduction barely
wobbled, that monopoly power (cartel in this case)?
> In the case of Microsoft, their biggest competitor is Microsoft. If they
> don't produce a better next-version, their revenue stream dries up! It is
to
> their advantage to create a better product at a lower price.
Hogwash. If they didn't have some sort of competition, feeble as it is,
they'd have software maintenance contracts and be charging each customer for
individual bug fixes.
> >
> >> As for being prohibited from including XML, there is no way the
> >> CONSUMER benefits from that sanction.
> >
> > Only that the law must be followed.
>
> You keep trying to find SOME hook to show that monopoly power is bad. How
is
> following the law good (or bad) for the CONSUMER?
>
Again, you have got to be kidding.
You keep trying to avoid common, simple facts.
> > Well, when the telephone company in Manitoba (MTS, a government
> > monopoly) was sold to private enterprise, the cost of residential
> > service quickly doubled.
>
> And the taxes that were going to subsidize the service either went away or
> were diverted for other purposes. You did get a significant tax reduction,
> didn't you?
>
Of course not. MTS was profitable, providing some funds to provincial
general revenue.
> >
> > Given the recent market catastrophe, if you can state with a straight
> > face and reasonable conviction that private enterprise is always the
> > way to go I'll buy you a beer. Private enterprise works as long as
> > the profits aren't threatened. Then they go jetting off to the
> > government for handouts!
> >
>
> Let me turn it around to a simpler proposition: You show ME one enterprise
> better run by the government than by private enterprise and I'll buy you a
> baby bottle complete with teat.
Cop-out. I asked first. I do have an answer but you go first.
I remain astounded by your blithe evasion of facts. Unless you have
something sensible to add I'm dropping out of this discussion. You're
evidently a doctrinaire man and there's no point in argiuing with a fanatic.
PL
HeyBub
> HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:aOCdna8BId_-> >>
>>>> Yes, Microsoft got pounded by the European courts.
>>>>
>>>> But look at your claim: "... anti-competitive behavior." That's not
>>>> anti-CONSUMER behavior. MS got flogged for including a media player
>>>> with XP to the competitive disadvantage of other companies that
>>>> wanted to SELL a media player. From the consumer's perspective,
>>>> FREE is better than PAID.
>>>>
>
> Look, dolt, by your very own words there were other companies
> involved in the market. Therefore MS did NOT have a monopoly at the
> time. If MS is as benevolent as you seem to think, they would reduce
> the consumer cost of their products to the cost of production; after
> all, FREE is better than PAID.
I never said - or even hinted - that MS was benevolent. It's a clever trick
to attribute something to me just so you can knock it down.
>>>
>>
>> Possibly, but the CONSUMER still benefits. Capitalism is NOT about
>> choice. There are three things that go into the creation of a
>> product or service: Capital, Labor, and Raw Materials. Capitalism is
>> the PRIVATE control of the first of these.
>>
> And the tax breaks, incentives, interest-free non-repayable loans from
> government? Oil companies are paid bonuses to go out and drill
> exploratory wells, did you know that?
Hmm. I'm in Houston. I've worked in the oil business and oil-related
industries for over four decades*. I've never heard of anyone being paid to
drill an exploratory well (well, not exactly, a drilling company might be
paid by the owner of a minerals lease to poke a hole in the ground, but I'm
sure that's not what you had in mind). Who in your universe was doing the
paying?
>
> How about gasoline? Is there any other reason that the cost TO THE
> CONSUMER nearly doubled before the recent crash when the cost of
> rpoduction barely wobbled, that monopoly power (cartel in this case)?
>
The seven major oil companies have been investigated some fifteen times by
the Congress since the Carter years with a view toward discovering how
complicit they were in manipulating (gouging, price-fixing, withholding,
etc.) oil and its products. There has NEVER been a showing of anything other
than normal market forces at work.
We get less than half our imported oil from members of OPEC.
>> In the case of Microsoft, their biggest competitor is Microsoft. If
>> they don't produce a better next-version, their revenue stream dries
>> up! It is to their advantage to create a better product at a lower
>> price.
>
> Hogwash. If they didn't have some sort of competition, feeble as it
> is, they'd have software maintenance contracts and be charging each
> customer for individual bug fixes.
Huh? What makes you think that 7% of the market is responsible for
Microsoft's marketing strategy? Seven percent is not even noise.
>>
>> And the taxes that were going to subsidize the service either went
>> away or were diverted for other purposes. You did get a significant
>> tax reduction, didn't you?
>>
>
> Of course not. MTS was profitable, providing some funds to provincial
> general revenue.
So, to recap: The government sold an enterprise to the private sector. The
taxes formerly used to prop-up this government venture were diverted to
other purposes instead of being rebated to the taxpayer. The government,
moreover, was able to tax the now-private industry, generating even MORE
revenues and the poor taxpayer took it in the shorts. Incredibly, some
taxpayers think this is a good idea.
>
> I remain astounded by your blithe evasion of facts. Unless you have
> something sensible to add I'm dropping out of this discussion. You're
> evidently a doctrinaire man and there's no point in argiuing with a
> fanatic.
>
Hoista ya legga.
But one last suggestion. Look up "Microsoft Derangement Syndrome."
There's probably a twelve-step program available somewhere.
------
* I've worked for Shell Oil, Western Geophysical, and Petroleum Information.
docd...@panix.com
HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>tlmfru wrote:
>> HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:8M-> If you're
>> worried that a Microsoft monopoly will gouge the consumer, don't.
>>> In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is good for the
>>> consumer!
>>
>> You can't possibly be serious! Hasn't Microsoft been fined 1.5
>> billion euros for anti-competitive behaviour? And haven't they just
>> been enjoined from selling WORD because they've infringed upon a a
>> patent for XML?
>
>Yes, Microsoft got pounded by the European courts.
>
>But look at your claim: "... anti-competitive behavior." That's not
>anti-CONSUMER behavior. MS got flogged for including a media player with XP
>to the competitive disadvantage of other companies that wanted to SELL a
>media player. From the consumer's perspective, FREE is better than PAID.
From the consumer's perspective you get what you pay for... see how easy
this is?
>
>As for being prohibited from including XML, there is no way the CONSUMER
>benefits from that sanction.
>
>I stand by my statement: "In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is
>good for the consumer."
Asserted and responded:'This sounds remarkably like 'a free market is good
DonEstes
standard version is GPL and unsupported, but the enterprise version
requires a support contract, basically the MySQL and Red Hat model of
open source. It should compile any program that compiles with Micro
Focus, except I'm not sure about the 2002 OO extension. Requires
Microsoft C++ compiler, but that is also free.