MS makes yet another smart move
DFS
Technical Officer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7147797/
Reynolds Birthday
They can name Ozzie Osborne as Chief Laundress.
They're still going down.....
--
Texeme
http://texeme.com
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>
>> They're buying Groove Networks, and naming Ray Ozzie as Microsoft
>> Chief Technical Officer.
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7147797/
>
> They can name Ozzie Osborne as Chief Laundress.
>
> They're still going down.....
It's easy to make a blanket statement like that - it's much harder to say
why or when or how.
You don't honestly think MS' Windows or Office monopoly is going anywhere in
the next 10 years, do you?
Daeron
their original technology into the next version of Windows.
Remember when BackOffice was an inferior clone of Lotus Notes. BO
introduced *after* MS tried to buy out Notes !!!!!
and some more !!!!!
The Contender
> It's easy to make a blanket statement like that - it's much harder to say
> why or when or how.
>
> You don't honestly think MS' Windows or Office monopoly is going anywhere
> in the next 10 years, do you?
Look at it from my perspective:
Take a new business, which is not saddled with old ideas, and a young IT
director.
Say this person, fresh out of college, chooses to build his business on
Novell Suse.
Then a year later, a Microsoft salesman, wearing a checkered suit, and
carrying a suitcase, comes to the door.
What can this person say to the young IT director to sell his products?
"Sir, I'd like to sell you something more unstable."
"How about paying me for what you can get for free?"
"I have a brand new W2003 server for you, and it locks up all the time, and
has to be rebooted...want to replace your stable Linux servers?"
Please...tell me...I just don't see how m$ can compete against Linux.
It can't.
It's dead.
It's over.
--
Texeme
http://texeme.com
The Ghost In The Machine
<doug.m...@gmail.com>
wrote
on 11 Mar 2005 06:51:28 -0800
<1110552688....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
> So - what's new, they `partner' with a potential rival and integrate
> their original technology into the next version of Windows.
And then call it innovation.
>
> Remember when BackOffice was an inferior clone of Lotus Notes. BO
> introduced *after* MS tried to buy out Notes !!!!!
>
> and some more !!!!!
>
I don't remember that specifically but it wouldn't surprise me. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Ray Ingles
> You don't honestly think MS' Windows or Office monopoly is going
> anywhere in the next 10 years, do you?
As web-based and collaborative apps start becoming more common,
yeah I can see Office monopoly going away. Adding more features isn't
the answer - hardly anyone uses more than 20% of the core features
of, say, Word. It's been a 'de facto' standard for a while, but now
there's things like PDF for heavily formatted docs, and forms
distributed electronically are moving to the web. Most people don't
use anything that Office 97 didn't offer, and Linux offers all that
and more.
As the actual nature of the client becomes less important, Windows
will become less important. Windows has a fair amount of inertia,
but aside from games it doesn't have a heck of a lot of exclusive
content to offer. The growth of Firefox and Thunderbird has shown
that security is, in fact, becoming a necessary feature to compete.
Windows hasn't done all that well in general on that score. The
LAND vulnerability actually came *back*, for example.
Microsoft hasn't expanded out of its core (desktops) the way it
wanted. It's definitely way behind on the high end (Windows for
Clusters won't offer features *currently available* in Linux
until version 3.0) and hasn't made much impact in the low end
(embedded) where margins are tight enough that license fees are
a major consideration.
The nature of the desktop will change in the next few years, I
think. Flash drives and such will let people take their desktop
with them (there's already Linux distros that boot and run from
flash drives or even rewritable CDs) and apps and info will be
distributed. Windows will have to work to move into this space;
Linux is already there.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Microsoft Windows - Let it get in YOUR way.
DFS
> In article <ZDhYd.17577$TN5....@fe07.lga>, DFS wrote:
>> You don't honestly think MS' Windows or Office monopoly is going
>> anywhere in the next 10 years, do you?
>
> As web-based and collaborative apps start becoming more common,
> yeah I can see Office monopoly going away.
You can see it, but it's not going to happen. What company in its right
mind is going to move away from MS Office, after running it for years and
amassing an enormous collection of Office format files and systems?
> Adding more features isn't
> the answer -
But that doesn't stop Linux and OSS from doing it with each new release of
each program.
> hardly anyone uses more than 20% of the core features
> of, say, Word. It's been a 'de facto' standard for a while, but now
> there's things like PDF for heavily formatted docs, and forms
> distributed electronically are moving to the web. Most people don't
> use anything that Office 97 didn't offer, and Linux offers all that
> and more.
As far as I know, there still is not a single OSS file-server relational
database program like MS Access. Millions of copies of Office Pro are sold
just to get Access. The OO.o beta 2.0 version has a db client with nice
connectivity options, but it uses other existing databases, including
Access. I think this lack of a standalone db program is hurting OO.o more
than anything else.
> As the actual nature of the client becomes less important, Windows
> will become less important.
That's been predicted for 10 years. The rise of the Internet/browser was
supposed to kill the fat client PC running Windows. It didn't. The rise of
Linux was supposed to kill Windows. It hasn't and won't. The rise of
NT/2000 was supposed to kill Unix - and it's doing just that (along with
help from Linux).
> Windows has a fair amount of inertia,
> but aside from games it doesn't have a heck of a lot of exclusive
> content to offer.
Except for the largest universe of non-game applications of any platform,
ever. You forgot about those, eh?
> The growth of Firefox and Thunderbird has shown
> that security is, in fact, becoming a necessary feature to compete.
> Windows hasn't done all that well in general on that score.
True, but it's not difficult to secure Windows.
> Microsoft hasn't expanded out of its core (desktops) the way it
> wanted. It's definitely way behind on the high end (Windows for
> Clusters won't offer features *currently available* in Linux
> until version 3.0) and hasn't made much impact in the low end
> (embedded)
They didn't target those markets until recently. Even so, Windows CE is
now the dominant OS on PDAs. And not long after Windows XP 64-bit goes
gold, it will be the widest used 64-bit OS in the world, by far.
> where margins are tight enough that license fees are
> a major consideration.
PC hardware margins have been _extremely_ tight for at least the last 5
years, but that hasn't stopped OEMs from continuing to sell Windows. By the
tens of millions.
> The nature of the desktop will change in the next few years, I
> think.
Me too. Faster and dual-core CPUs. Bigger and faster 10k rpm hard drives.
Faster memory. Better video cards. Higher res LCDs. New mobo formfactors.
All running new versions of Windows.
And all at ever lower prices.
> Flash drives and such will let people take their desktop
> with them (there's already Linux distros that boot and run from
> flash drives or even rewritable CDs) and apps and info will be
> distributed. Windows will have to work to move into this space;
> Linux is already there.
Those are neat features with tiny markets. I expect MS and Windows won't
try to move into that area; there's not enough demand.
Rod Engelsman
>
> As far as I know, there still is not a single OSS file-server relational
> database program like MS Access. Millions of copies of Office Pro are sold
> just to get Access. The OO.o beta 2.0 version has a db client with nice
> connectivity options, but it uses other existing databases, including
> Access. I think this lack of a standalone db program is hurting OO.o more
> than anything else.
>
Your last statement is probably true (at least in a business
environment), but OOo 2.0 WILL ship with a standalone relational db
program -- HSQLDB.
>
>
>>The growth of Firefox and Thunderbird has shown
>>that security is, in fact, becoming a necessary feature to compete.
>>Windows hasn't done all that well in general on that score.
>
>
> True, but it's not difficult to secure Windows.
>
For about five minutes maybe.
>
DFS
Or five years.
The Ghost In The Machine
<nos...@DFS.com>
wrote
on Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:56:13 -0500
<MCoYd.48381$el4....@fe06.lga>:
> Ray Ingles wrote:
>> In article <ZDhYd.17577$TN5....@fe07.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>> You don't honestly think MS' Windows or Office monopoly is going
>>> anywhere in the next 10 years, do you?
>>
>> As web-based and collaborative apps start becoming more common,
>> yeah I can see Office monopoly going away.
>
> You can see it, but it's not going to happen. What company in its right
> mind is going to move away from MS Office, after running it for years and
> amassing an enormous collection of Office format files and systems?
Among them various pieces of malware?
Erm......yeah.
>
>
>
>> Adding more features isn't
>> the answer -
>
> But that doesn't stop Linux and OSS from doing it with each new release of
> each program.
And this of course means that we should just take Office, which hasn't
added a new feature since I don't know when -- but which has
lots of new viruses.
[rest snipped]
rw...@yahoo.com
time soon. Speaking as someone that buys a lot of PC's on a
continuing basis, it has become just so easy to walk into Joe BigBox
and buy a $500 cpu with WinXP on it that just flat out does just about
everything the end user wants.
I think Office may be in trouble on the home user platform, but I think
MS may have already countered with their low price "teacher and
student" license for 3 home PC's. I wonder though, when Open Office
hits v 2.1 and is stable, functional, and free, how long will it take
for it to begin serious market penetration. This dovetails into the
comparison of how many folks in the home market just pirate a copy of
Office, couldn't care less, and wouldn't go to the effort of
downloading OpenOffice in order to be legal.
I sit here posting with Netscape on Slackware 9.1; (will go to 10.1
next month). Personally, I think a multi platform environment with
multiple CPU's, a big monitor, and an 8 port KVM switch is truly the
way to fly. Total environment here, 1 XP, 2 W2K, 1 WinMillenium, 1
NT4.0sp6a (stablist windows ever made), 1 Slack 9.1, 1 Slack 10.0, and
1 Win 98 to run a 16 bit ISA (relay IO) card that I find interesting.
I love Linux for surfing, gimp, inet server, and file server
functions; I like windows for cheapskate media, banking, access, word &
excel, mapping (Street Atlas/TopoUSA/Garmin Metroguide), PDA linkage,
as well as writing code for dollars.
I keep thinking I ought to hunt ebay for an inexpensive Mac with an
early OS X, just to add to the picture, but to be honest, I worked with
a friend's Mac not to long ago and it didn't seem to me to be much
different than any other $2k machine I'd played with at the time.
Ten years from now, I would not be surprised to see more folks with
multiple platforms. In the past it was one thing to throw away an 8mhz
IBM XT and replace it with a 25 mhz 386, but throwing away a 3ghz
machine with 200 gig of storage.. I don't think so. It used to be we
only tolerated the slow processing of that 8086 because the alternative
we compared it against was spending hours manually computing a ledger
spreadsheet, so when a machine took what was once a 1 hour calculation
on the 8088 and did it in 5 minutes, it was enough to relagate that
8088 to the trash. Now we are talking about machines that will play
DVD's in real time, capture and store video in real time, compute
anything realistic in a few seconds, etc. Ten years from now, that
3ghz machine will still play DVD's in real time, etc. There is no
reason to expect that machine to end up in the junk pile; someone might
buy an additional machine to do something else, perhaps to sit beside
the TV in the living room and play/record HDTV, games, network surfing
via voice command; but that 3ghz machine will still be banging out
stuff as always, at least until it hits its full operational life
expectancy and fries the CPU or memory chip.
Multiplatform is the wave of the future, and that includes both *nix
and microsoft.
DFS
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
> <nos...@DFS.com>
> wrote
> on Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:56:13 -0500
> <MCoYd.48381$el4....@fe06.lga>:
>> Ray Ingles wrote:
>>> In article <ZDhYd.17577$TN5....@fe07.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>>> You don't honestly think MS' Windows or Office monopoly is going
>>>> anywhere in the next 10 years, do you?
>>>
>>> As web-based and collaborative apps start becoming more common,
>>> yeah I can see Office monopoly going away.
>>
>> You can see it, but it's not going to happen. What company in its
>> right mind is going to move away from MS Office, after running it
>> for years and amassing an enormous collection of Office format files
>> and systems?
>
> Among them various pieces of malware?
>
> Erm......yeah.
I don't think you really understand how entrenched MS Office is in the
business world. The cost of redeveloping all the automation and business
analysis systems built around Office would be astronomical.
I've deployed about 75-100 such systems over the past 10 years. Some large
and costly, some small and one-off throwaways. I'd guess the current cost
to redevelop all of them would approach $1,000,000, though at least half are
no longer used.
And that's just me - one lone Windope.
>>> Adding more features isn't
>>> the answer -
>>
>> But that doesn't stop Linux and OSS from doing it with each new
>> release of each program.
>
> And this of course means that we should just take Office, which hasn't
> added a new feature since I don't know when -- but which has
> lots of new viruses.
Office has added tons of new features between Office 97 and Office 2003 -
which you would know if you actually used it regularly.
Ghost, I've noticed you don't do so well as an antagonizer. You're just not
built for it. Something happened in your childhood, I guess. I think it's
best you stick with your nearly stream of consciousness posts on technology,
some of which are very interesting to read.
> [rest snipped]
Ray Ingles
> Ray Ingles wrote:
> You can see it, but it's not going to happen. What company in its right
> mind is going to move away from MS Office, after running it for years and
> amassing an enormous collection of Office format files and systems?
to another platform yet?
>> Adding more features isn't the answer -
>
> But that doesn't stop Linux and OSS from doing it with each new release of
> each program.
Linux is not an office suite. The vast majority of OSS programs are not
office suites. Let's keep things in context, shall we?
>> hardly anyone uses more than 20% of the core features of, say, Word.
>
> As far as I know, there still is not a single OSS file-server relational
> database program like MS Access.
MS Access isn't Word, which is what I was talking about. On the other hand,
as has been pointed out to you, just such an item is coming in the next
release.
>> As the actual nature of the client becomes less important, Windows
>> will become less important.
>
> That's been predicted for 10 years. The rise of the Internet/browser was
> supposed to kill the fat client PC running Windows. It didn't.
Microsoft worked pretty hard to prevent that. They were worried. I think
they have more reason to worry now (see below).
>> Windows has a fair amount of inertia,
>> but aside from games it doesn't have a heck of a lot of exclusive
>> content to offer.
>
> Except for the largest universe of non-game applications of any platform,
> ever. You forgot about those, eh?
No. Few if any of those 'non-game applications' have no equivalents on
other platforms. You can talk about 'slopware' (I noticed you shut up really
fast when I pointed out that Linux and GNU software did vastly better than
Windows on things like the 'fuzz test') but Windows was crap compared to
the competition and won based on price (and monopoly leverage, DOS et.
al.). For many purposes, it was 'good enough'.
>> The growth of Firefox and Thunderbird has shown
>> that security is, in fact, becoming a necessary feature to compete.
>> Windows hasn't done all that well in general on that score.
>
> True, but it's not difficult to secure Windows.
Microsoft has had trouble themselves. Remember the SQL Slammer attack
that mucked up their internal operations for a few days?
>> Microsoft hasn't expanded out of its core (desktops) the way it
>> wanted. It's definitely way behind on the high end (Windows for
>> Clusters won't offer features *currently available* in Linux
>> until version 3.0) and hasn't made much impact in the low end
>> (embedded)
>
> They didn't target those markets until recently.
High end, I'll grant they haven't been trying long (wonder why?).
Low end, they've been after a while. Aside from PDAs, they haven't made
too many strides in the low end.
> Even so, Windows CE is now the dominant OS on PDAs.
Last I'd heard, WinCE had just caught up to PalmOS in terms of shipping
rates, and market share still was in Palm's favor. See here:
http://www.palminfocenter.com/view_story.asp?ID=7298
It's a bit like Xbox vs. PS2; PalmOS has a *much* larger installed base.
Secondly, PDAs as PDAs are dying; things are moving into the 'smartphone'
area, and victory there is a lot less clear.
>> where margins are tight enough that license fees are
>> a major consideration.
>
> PC hardware margins have been _extremely_ tight for at least the last 5
> years, but that hasn't stopped OEMs from continuing to sell Windows. By the
> tens of millions.
I agree, monopolies will do that to you.
>> Flash drives and such will let people take their desktop
>> with them (there's already Linux distros that boot and run from
>> flash drives or even rewritable CDs) and apps and info will be
>> distributed. Windows will have to work to move into this space;
>> Linux is already there.
>
> Those are neat features with tiny markets. I expect MS and Windows won't
> try to move into that area; there's not enough demand.
Hasn't been much demand, but people are starting to carry around huge
hard drives for a completely different purpose - music collections.
If they are going to be carrying something like that around anyway,
why not their whole computing evnironment?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Many people would sooner die than think. In fact, they do."
- Bertrand Russell
DFS
> In article <MCoYd.48381$el4....@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
>> Ray Ingles wrote:
>> You can see it, but it's not going to happen. What company in its
>> right mind is going to move away from MS Office, after running it
>> for years and amassing an enormous collection of Office format files
>> and systems?
>
> People moved from, e.g., Wordperfect to MS Word. Why *can't* they
> move to another platform yet?
Not that they can't, they won't. Unless, maybe just maybe, it offers close
to 100% interoperability. OO.o isn't there yet.
>>> Adding more features isn't the answer -
>>
>> But that doesn't stop Linux and OSS from doing it with each new
>> release of each program.
>
> Linux is not an office suite. The vast majority of OSS programs are
> not office suites. Let's keep things in context, shall we?
It's not the category of software that matters, it's the feature bloat.
Both MS and Linux/OSS are guilty of such. Anyway, I don't consider it an
issue. Doesn't hurt me if the new version of Access or KDevelop has 20 new
little features I won't ever use.
>>> hardly anyone uses more than 20% of the core features of, say, Word.
>>
>> As far as I know, there still is not a single OSS file-server
>> relational database program like MS Access.
>
> MS Access isn't Word, which is what I was talking about. On the
> other hand, as has been pointed out to you, just such an item is
> coming in the next release.
I saw that. Thanks for the link.
But if you dig a bit deeper, you'll find out it's probably not going to
happen. The Hypersonic SQLdb project is way behind, and most likely won't
meet the OO.o 2.0 release date. And from what I've seen, it will be a
fairly rudimentary engine (when I last checked, you couldn't alter a column
type. See http://hsqldb.sourceforge.net/web/openoffice.html under Current
Development Status).
Still, it's the most interesting part of OO.o to me, and I'll probably
contribute some serious testing and bug reports.
>>> As the actual nature of the client becomes less important, Windows
>>> will become less important.
>>
>> That's been predicted for 10 years. The rise of the
>> Internet/browser was supposed to kill the fat client PC running
>> Windows. It didn't.
>
> Microsoft worked pretty hard to prevent that. They were worried. I
> think they have more reason to worry now (see below).
I'd have to agree with you. The Linux/OSS tool alternatives for most of the
work I do - in Access/Oracle/SQL Server - are probably
Glade/PostGreSQL/MySQL. While they're not up to the Windows/closed source
standards, it's my belief they're good enough for the smallish systems I
build. But my clients run Windows and MS Office on their desktops. And
they have for nearly 10 years. I doubt they'll ever switch.
>>> Windows has a fair amount of inertia,
>>> but aside from games it doesn't have a heck of a lot of exclusive
>>> content to offer.
>>
>> Except for the largest universe of non-game applications of any
>> platform, ever. You forgot about those, eh?
>
> No. Few if any of those 'non-game applications' have no equivalents
> on other platforms.
Those "equivalents" often aren't nearly that.
> You can talk about 'slopware' (I noticed you shut
> up really fast when I pointed out that Linux and GNU software did
> vastly better than Windows on things like the 'fuzz test')
Ray, I didn't shut up. I just can't answer every post directed to me.
> but
> Windows was crap compared to the competition and won based on price
> (and monopoly leverage, DOS et. al.).
Not true. There was nothing as good as Windows 3.0 and 3.1 at the time.
> For many purposes, it was 'good enough'.
And that's really all anyone needs.
>>> The growth of Firefox and Thunderbird has shown
>>> that security is, in fact, becoming a necessary feature to compete.
>>> Windows hasn't done all that well in general on that score.
>>
>> True, but it's not difficult to secure Windows.
>
> Microsoft has had trouble themselves. Remember the SQL Slammer attack
> that mucked up their internal operations for a few days?
Yes I do. Do you remember not too long ago 38,000 servers running an OSS
program called openBB (or something like that) were hit with a benign
attack?
>>> Microsoft hasn't expanded out of its core (desktops) the way it
>>> wanted. It's definitely way behind on the high end (Windows for
>>> Clusters won't offer features *currently available* in Linux
>>> until version 3.0) and hasn't made much impact in the low end
>>> (embedded)
>>
>> They didn't target those markets until recently.
>
> High end, I'll grant they haven't been trying long (wonder why?).
Recently they announced a division that will target supercomputers, I
believe.
> Low end, they've been after a while. Aside from PDAs, they haven't
> made
> too many strides in the low end.
>
>> Even so, Windows CE is now the dominant OS on PDAs.
>
> Last I'd heard, WinCE had just caught up to PalmOS in terms of
> shipping rates, and market share still was in Palm's favor. See here:
>
> http://www.palminfocenter.com/view_story.asp?ID=7298
>
> It's a bit like Xbox vs. PS2; PalmOS has a *much* larger installed
> base. Secondly, PDAs as PDAs are dying; things are moving into the
> 'smartphone' area, and victory there is a lot less clear.
>>> where margins are tight enough that license fees are
>>> a major consideration.
>>
>> PC hardware margins have been _extremely_ tight for at least the
>> last 5 years, but that hasn't stopped OEMs from continuing to sell
>> Windows. By the tens of millions.
>
> I agree, monopolies will do that to you.
And it seems people want to support the monopoly - even 10 years on.
>>> Flash drives and such will let people take their desktop
>>> with them (there's already Linux distros that boot and run from
>>> flash drives or even rewritable CDs) and apps and info will be
>>> distributed. Windows will have to work to move into this space;
>>> Linux is already there.
>>
>> Those are neat features with tiny markets. I expect MS and Windows
>> won't try to move into that area; there's not enough demand.
>
> Hasn't been much demand, but people are starting to carry around huge
> hard drives for a completely different purpose - music collections.
> If they are going to be carrying something like that around anyway,
> why not their whole computing evnironment?
That's what personal laptops and notebooks running Windows are for.
The Ghost In The Machine
<nos...@DFS.com>
wrote
<WcuYd.2939$v46....@fe03.lga>:
No doubt the top horse-and-buggy manufacturer was very sure
of his dominance sometime in the late 1800's or early 1900's
when the "horseless carriage" came out.
Even Thomas Watson was a little confused back in 1943:
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
and a little later a copy of Popular Mechanics in 1946 proudly
proclaimed that
"Computer in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
Even as late as 1977 Ken Olson (DEC chairman/founder) proclaimed:
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
And of course back in 1876, in a fit of short-sightedness that
can only be described as extremely absurd, a Western Union internal
memo declared:
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be
seriously considered as a means of communication. The
device is inherently of no value to us."
(Nokia in the US alone (stock symbol NOK) reports an enterprise value
of $60.77B, a market cap of $75.79B, and revenues of $38.01B. Not
bad for an item with "no value", though I'm wondering how much
this was worth in 1876 dollars.)
http://www.ucgbook.com/index.php3?page=http%3A//www.ucgbook.com/quotes.php3
>
>
>>>> Adding more features isn't
>>>> the answer -
>>>
>>> But that doesn't stop Linux and OSS from doing it with each new
>>> release of each program.
>>
>> And this of course means that we should just take Office, which hasn't
>> added a new feature since I don't know when -- but which has
>> lots of new viruses.
>
> Office has added tons of new features between Office 97 and Office 2003 -
> which you would know if you actually used it regularly.
I avoid it like the plague. Come to think of it, I avoid it
*because* of the plague. One wonders: why the plague?
>
> Ghost, I've noticed you don't do so well as an antagonizer. You're just not
> built for it. Something happened in your childhood, I guess. I think it's
> best you stick with your nearly stream of consciousness posts on technology,
> some of which are very interesting to read.
Well, thanks ... I think. :-P :-)
Ray Ingles
>> People moved from, e.g., Wordperfect to MS Word. Why *can't* they
>> move to another platform yet?
>
> Not that they can't, they won't. Unless, maybe just maybe, it offers close
> to 100% interoperability. OO.o isn't there yet.
Wordperfect support. People do switch and abandon old data all the time.
>>>> hardly anyone uses more than 20% of the core features of, say, Word.
>>>
>>> As far as I know, there still is not a single OSS file-server
>>> relational database program like MS Access.
Say, I forgot to ask. What is it that Access does that other RDBs
don't? I'm not a DB guy myself and from everything I've heard Access
isn't a terribly sophisticated RDB...
>> No. Few if any of those 'non-game applications' have no equivalents
>> on other platforms.
>
> Those "equivalents" often aren't nearly that.
Whatever. I doubt if there is a set of circumstances that would cause
you to abandon the 'slopware' squawking, so I won't waste time debating
that with you.
>> For many purposes, it was 'good enough'.
>
> And that's really all anyone needs.
My point is that, for the vast majority of home needs, any of the
three main home computer operating systems (Windows, Linux, OSX) are
'good enough'. They do what's needed; the differences are minor and
mostly cosmetic. Now, Windows *cannot* undersell or buy out Linux,
which has been their traditional strategies. It must compete on other
considerations like quality. I don't know of a case where Microsoft
has successfully competed as the top-quality vendor (though there
must be a few), only as the lowest-price, 'good enough' vendor.
>> Microsoft has had trouble themselves. Remember the SQL Slammer attack
>> that mucked up their internal operations for a few days?
>
> Yes I do. Do you remember not too long ago 38,000 servers running an OSS
> program called openBB (or something like that) were hit with a benign
> attack?
One would presume a major corporation would be a little more up-to-date
on their patches than a bunch of small bulletin boards. Besides which,
Microsoft products have had a lot more than the Slammer worm hit them.
>> High end, I'll grant they haven't been trying long (wonder why?).
>
> Recently they announced a division that will target supercomputers, I
> believe.
Yup, recently. As in, "they haven't been trying long". Linux has been
there from the get-go; in many ways, Linux made the "pile of PCs"
style of supercomputing possible (Beowulf, anyone?).
>>> PC hardware margins have been _extremely_ tight for at least the
>>> last 5 years, but that hasn't stopped OEMs from continuing to sell
>>> Windows. By the tens of millions.
>>
>> I agree, monopolies will do that to you.
>
> And it seems people want to support the monopoly - even 10 years on.
The hardware makers don't "want" to support it. They *have* to play
Microsoft's game to get Windows at the prices they need to survive.
For example, not installing other operating systems on their products.
(Look up BeOS and the 'trade secret' contracts that Microsoft makes
OEMs sign...)
Fortunately, embedded developers aren't forced to play Microsoft's
game. And WinCE hasn't done well at all outside of PDAs (where MS
has benefitted from the symbiotic nature of PDAs and desktops).
>> Hasn't been much demand, but people are starting to carry around huge
>> hard drives for a completely different purpose - music collections.
>> If they are going to be carrying something like that around anyway,
>> why not their whole computing evnironment?
>
> That's what personal laptops and notebooks running Windows are for.
Two words: screen size. Either you have a large comfortable screen
(and an uncomfortably bulky package) or a small squinty screen (and
it fits in your pocket). But if you can use the big monitor that's
already there...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"If you knew that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had received a
memo a month before Pearl Harbor entitled, "Japanese Determined
to Attack the United States in the Pacific," and that he had done
nothing about that information, would that knowledge change your
perception of FDR as a wise war leader?" - Jim Pinkerton
billwg
>
> Getting closer all the time. And even Word of the day didn't offer 100%
> Wordperfect support. People do switch and abandon old data all the time.
>
have a lot of embedded cost in using VBA to generate employee
administration forms that roll up to operations reports, etc. To
effectively replace MS Office, OO would have to pickup this side of the
investment as well. Also, MS Office doesn't cost all that much relative
to the training aspects for current employees. A department manager
fears the task of introducing a new technology into an established
operation much more than you apparently think they might. Just an hour
or two of lost time and/or retraining is an expensive proposition and
that is less than the feared cost of mistakes that can be made in a new
environment.
It may be a lot of FUD, but that is why leader products stay in place in
all industries.
>
>>>>>hardly anyone uses more than 20% of the core features of, say, Word.
>>>>
>>>>As far as I know, there still is not a single OSS file-server
>>>>relational database program like MS Access.
>
>
> Say, I forgot to ask. What is it that Access does that other RDBs
> don't? I'm not a DB guy myself and from everything I've heard Access
> isn't a terribly sophisticated RDB...
>
The MSJet DLLs are part of Windows distributions and give applications a
very quick way of keeping small pools of data handy without any setup
or maintenance. Remember when dBase was such a popular product? Access
is free for runtime applications.
>
>>> No. Few if any of those 'non-game applications' have no equivalents
>>>on other platforms.
>>
>>Those "equivalents" often aren't nearly that.
>
>
> Whatever. I doubt if there is a set of circumstances that would cause
> you to abandon the 'slopware' squawking, so I won't waste time debating
> that with you.
>
People using apps will use what they know. They do not like to be put
into a new situation since they will feel uncomfortable until they
become familiar with it. That is just nature. People who learn apps in
school learn the commercial apps because that is what business asks for
on employee applications. If you are not mainstream, you have
difficulty being recognized.
>
>>>For many purposes, it was 'good enough'.
>>
>>And that's really all anyone needs.
>
>
> My point is that, for the vast majority of home needs, any of the
> three main home computer operating systems (Windows, Linux, OSX) are
> 'good enough'. They do what's needed; the differences are minor and
> mostly cosmetic. Now, Windows *cannot* undersell or buy out Linux,
> which has been their traditional strategies. It must compete on other
> considerations like quality. I don't know of a case where Microsoft
> has successfully competed as the top-quality vendor (though there
> must be a few), only as the lowest-price, 'good enough' vendor.
>
Good enough isn't sufficient to overcome resistance to change. Good
enough needs some help. With the evolution of desktop PCs, the help was
a steep cost differential between, say, a PC WP program and a dedicated
WP such as a Lanier system. Or between a collection of PCs with P2P
workgroup networking and a Sun server and X-terminals.
Once you are an entreched market leader, the good enough choice is easy
to beat.
>
>>> Microsoft has had trouble themselves. Remember the SQL Slammer attack
>>>that mucked up their internal operations for a few days?
>>
>>Yes I do. Do you remember not too long ago 38,000 servers running an OSS
>>program called openBB (or something like that) were hit with a benign
>>attack?
>
>
> One would presume a major corporation would be a little more up-to-date
> on their patches than a bunch of small bulletin boards. Besides which,
> Microsoft products have had a lot more than the Slammer worm hit them.
>
>
>>> High end, I'll grant they haven't been trying long (wonder why?).
>>
>>Recently they announced a division that will target supercomputers, I
>>believe.
>
>
> Yup, recently. As in, "they haven't been trying long". Linux has been
> there from the get-go; in many ways, Linux made the "pile of PCs"
> style of supercomputing possible (Beowulf, anyone?).
>
>
>>>>PC hardware margins have been _extremely_ tight for at least the
>>>>last 5 years, but that hasn't stopped OEMs from continuing to sell
>>>>Windows. By the tens of millions.
>>>
>>> I agree, monopolies will do that to you.
>>
>>And it seems people want to support the monopoly - even 10 years on.
>
>
> The hardware makers don't "want" to support it. They *have* to play
> Microsoft's game to get Windows at the prices they need to survive.
> For example, not installing other operating systems on their products.
> (Look up BeOS and the 'trade secret' contracts that Microsoft makes
> OEMs sign...)
>
Interestingly enough, the DOJ and states had subpoenaed all of these
contracts that were in effect with OEMs. They were introduced as
evidence under seal. However, no such charges were ever filed by the
DOJ and states who had access to these secret contracts and a number of
similar charges were made, for example not allowing the OEM to alter the
initial appearance of the IE logo. If any such practices were there,
there would have been some indication.
> Fortunately, embedded developers aren't forced to play Microsoft's
> game. And WinCE hasn't done well at all outside of PDAs (where MS
> has benefitted from the symbiotic nature of PDAs and desktops).
>
Windows has no place in embedded systems unless there is a substantial
UI requirement where a supplier would expect to benefit from the end
user's familiarity with Windows.
>
Mark Kent
billwg <bil...@hotmail.com> espoused:
2nd nymshift in 2 weeks.
Please take your off-topic posts to comwnt, where they
belong.
*plonk*
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Reality does not exist -- yet.
Ray Ingles
> It may be a lot of FUD, but that is why leader products stay in place in
> all industries.
solid lock for a long time.
>> My point is that, for the vast majority of home needs, any of the
>> three main home computer operating systems (Windows, Linux, OSX) are
>> 'good enough'.
> Once you are an entreched market leader, the good enough choice is easy
> to beat.
Until it starts offering advantages you can't. Cost differential is
only one aspect. Linux and Windows both have decent security models,
but Microsoft can't effectively *use* the security measures in the
Windows kernel without breaking most applications. Linux does not carry
this historical baggage, and is inherently more resistant to spyware
attacks. (See my "Keystone Predator" post.)
>> The hardware makers don't "want" to support it. They *have* to play
>> Microsoft's game to get Windows at the prices they need to survive.
>> For example, not installing other operating systems on their products.
>> (Look up BeOS and the 'trade secret' contracts that Microsoft makes
>> OEMs sign...)
>>
> Interestingly enough, the DOJ and states had subpoenaed all of these
> contracts that were in effect with OEMs. They were introduced as
> evidence under seal. [...] If any such practices were there,
> there would have been some indication.
The DOJ dropped the ball.
"Gassée offered to testify on behalf of the Department of Justice on
the boot loader question, reports Hacker, but the prosecution was only
interested in browser integration.
This isn't because the DoJ lacked evidence: OEM contracts, for example
from Gateway, formed an important part of its case. And it isn't
because the contracts were too sensitive to broach in public: selected
portions were used even where the documents were redacted or remained
under seal.
No, the DoJ was only apparently interested in the browser case, and
Hacker reports that Gassee was thanked for his input on the bootloader,
but asked only to testify about browser integration."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/08/31/jean_louis_gass_233_e/
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"You are not entitled to an opinion. An opinion is what you
have when you don't have any facts. When you have the facts,
you don't need an opinion." - David Gerrold
billwg
> In article <p_DZd.146459$qB6....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, billwg wrote:
>
>>It may be a lot of FUD, but that is why leader products stay in place in
>>all industries.
>
>
> Nothing's forever, especially in the computer business. IBM had a pretty
> solid lock for a long time.
>
>
>>> My point is that, for the vast majority of home needs, any of the
>>>three main home computer operating systems (Windows, Linux, OSX) are
>>>'good enough'.
>
>
>
>>Once you are an entreched market leader, the good enough choice is easy
>>to beat.
>
>
> Until it starts offering advantages you can't. Cost differential is
> only one aspect. Linux and Windows both have decent security models,
> but Microsoft can't effectively *use* the security measures in the
> Windows kernel without breaking most applications. Linux does not carry
> this historical baggage, and is inherently more resistant to spyware
> attacks. (See my "Keystone Predator" post.)
>
is one of the things people expect. If you escalate the administration
of desktops to the linux confusion level, you knock out most of the
market. It is apparently impossible for the techies to see that, so
they carp on their native security which is nothing more than the
obvious fact that unix/linux is very hard to use for casual computing.
You have to understand a lot of things that people are not ready to
invest the time required to learn about them.
By making program installation and execution automatic, Windows becomes
susceptible to these schemes. If linux had the same capabilities, it
would have the same problems.
>
>>> The hardware makers don't "want" to support it. They *have* to play
>>>Microsoft's game to get Windows at the prices they need to survive.
>>>For example, not installing other operating systems on their products.
>>>(Look up BeOS and the 'trade secret' contracts that Microsoft makes
>>>OEMs sign...)
>>>
>>
>>Interestingly enough, the DOJ and states had subpoenaed all of these
>>contracts that were in effect with OEMs. They were introduced as
>>evidence under seal. [...] If any such practices were there,
>>there would have been some indication.
>
>
> The DOJ dropped the ball.
>
> "Gassée offered to testify on behalf of the Department of Justice on
> the boot loader question, reports Hacker, but the prosecution was only
> interested in browser integration.
>
> This isn't because the DoJ lacked evidence: OEM contracts, for example
> from Gateway, formed an important part of its case. And it isn't
> because the contracts were too sensitive to broach in public: selected
> portions were used even where the documents were redacted or remained
> under seal.
>
> No, the DoJ was only apparently interested in the browser case, and
> Hacker reports that Gassee was thanked for his input on the bootloader,
> but asked only to testify about browser integration."
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/08/31/jean_louis_gass_233_e/
>
A self-serving spin to be sure, Ray! The DOJ stopped at nothing to toss
mud at Microsoft. They had IBM testifying as to the practices of MS in
their attempt to convince IBM to dump OS/2 and Lotus in favor of a
discounted Win95, for example. They were not likely to pass up
something as meaty as what Gassee claimed to be able to prove. The much
more likely explanation is that the DOJ saw Glassee for what he was, a
disenfranchised loser with an axe to grind and ready to blame everyone
but himself for his business failures.
No wonder that the cola folk cling to the myth, but it was just another
whine with no real substance.
Ray Ingles
> Ray Ingles wrote:
>>>It may be a lot of FUD, but that is why leader products stay in place in
>>>all industries.
>> but Microsoft can't effectively *use* the security measures in the
>> Windows kernel without breaking most applications. Linux does not carry
>> this historical baggage, and is inherently more resistant to spyware
>> attacks. (See my "Keystone Predator" post.)
>>
> A lot of baloney, Ray. Windows is easy to use to run programs and that
> is one of the things people expect.
Running programs on Linux is just as easy. No advantage there at all.
> If you escalate the administration
> of desktops to the linux confusion level, you knock out most of the
> market.
Now that's just FUD. Period. Administering a Linux machine is much
easier than administering a Windows machine in my experience, especially
at the desktop level. Install the apps you want (rpm, deb, whatever),
then run a tool to install patches every once in a while (or set it up
to do so automatically).
The steps to do so are pretty much the same as with Windows, except
you almost never have to type in license keys and you can back up the
media the programs come on without jumping through outrageous hoops.
> It is apparently impossible for the techies to see that, so
> they carp on their native security which is nothing more than the
> obvious fact that unix/linux is very hard to use for casual computing.
More FUD. My *kids* have no problem using Linux, and they are (almost)
five and two and a half. I also don't worry about leaving them alone
by the computer for a minute (to, say, change a diaper on our youngest)
when they're using Linux.
On Windows, they can and have mucked stuff up, and they aren't even
running as Administrator.
> By making program installation and execution automatic, Windows becomes
> susceptible to these schemes. If linux had the same capabilities, it
> would have the same problems.
IE and Outlook will install things without even *asking*. That's a
fundamentally broken model and recent history has borne that out. That
and forcing many applications to install and run as Administrator. As
Jim Richardson says, "Microsoft products are easy to administer. Anyone
can do it! Even if you don't want them to..."
[MS banning OEMs from shipping dual-boot computers]
> No wonder that the cola folk cling to the myth, but it was just another
> whine with no real substance.
Too bad the contracts are under seal. It lets you get away with such
claims. But the fact that, to my knowledge, *no* OEM *anywhere* offers
dual-boot PCs with a Microsoft OS and something else, despite people
who would like to buy them, is strong evidence in favor.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Modern deductive method: 1) Devise hypothesis. 2) Apply
for grant. 3) Perform experiments. 4) Revise hypothesis.
5) Backdate revised hypothesis. 6) Publish.
billwg
>
> IE and Outlook will install things without even *asking*. That's a
> fundamentally broken model and recent history has borne that out. That
> and forcing many applications to install and run as Administrator. As
> Jim Richardson says, "Microsoft products are easy to administer. Anyone
> can do it! Even if you don't want them to..."
>
You say, Ray, but automatic install and run without asking is done
because many people actually want to do that. They want to click on a
link and have the expected thing just happen. You say that is insecure,
and you are correct in some ways, but it is not a black and white issue.
These people who want this ease of use do not want their computers
trashed, either, so there is a conflict of sorts. You can lock down an
XP machine just as you can lock down a linux machine. You know that, of
course, but you say linux is better because you can lock it down.
Linux is behind the curve in this respect.
> [MS banning OEMs from shipping dual-boot computers]
>
>>No wonder that the cola folk cling to the myth, but it was just another
>>whine with no real substance.
>
>
> Too bad the contracts are under seal. It lets you get away with such
> claims. But the fact that, to my knowledge, *no* OEM *anywhere* offers
> dual-boot PCs with a Microsoft OS and something else, despite people
> who would like to buy them, is strong evidence in favor.
>
Where is your market data? All in your head, I'm sure! On the one hand
you claim that Microsoft has a monopoly because the OEMs are afraid that
they cannot sell computers with any other OS. Then you say that there
is a market for computers with multiple OS loaded. You have no data,
yet you impute that the OEMs are disregarding a source of income that
they know about but are fearful of exploiting lest Microsoft quit trying
to push more and more Windows copies through the channel. That is an
insane view that is apparent to anyone involved in commerce, but you
cola folk would rather cherish your conspiracy myths! LOL!!!
Arkady Duntov
(<slrnd3dtbs....@dmc22317.local>) wrote:
> Say, I forgot to ask. What is it that Access does that other RDBs
> don't?
Access is a development environment, not a DBMS. What's good about it is
the ease of creating a new, simple database to examine, reduce, modify, or
otherwise manipulate data. What's bad about it is it doesn't handle large
data sets well, multi-user access is exceptionally slow, long-term
survivability of a Jet database without corruption is lacking, and, most
importantly, it's a proprietary product of a corrupt monopoly.
> I'm not a DB guy myself and from everything I've heard Access
> isn't a terribly sophisticated RDB...
It certainly isn't. However, it's hard to beat for simple tasks.
Bob Hauck
> Ray Ingles wrote:
> You say, Ray, but automatic install and run without asking is done
> because many people actually want to do that.
Like that lady in the AOL ad: "I want to be HACKED [makes slashing
motion] like Kung Pau Chicken".
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| A proud member of the reality-based community.
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> On Tuesday 15 March 2005 07:42, Ray Ingles <sorc...@dmc22317.local>
> (<slrnd3dtbs....@dmc22317.local>) wrote:
>
> > Say, I forgot to ask. What is it that Access does that other RDBs
> > don't?
>
> Access is a development environment, not a DBMS. What's good about it is
> the ease of creating a new, simple database to examine, reduce, modify, or
> otherwise manipulate data. What's bad about it is it doesn't handle large
> data sets well, multi-user access is exceptionally slow, long-term
> survivability of a Jet database without corruption is lacking, and, most
> importantly, it's a proprietary product of a corrupt monopoly.
Is it even their product? I thought Access was built on top of
technology MS purchased.
> > I'm not a DB guy myself and from everything I've heard Access
> > isn't a terribly sophisticated RDB...
>
> It certainly isn't. However, it's hard to beat for simple tasks.
Therein lies the problem. It allows simple people to crank out poorly
designed applications. Not that everyone using Access is 'simple', but
the rigors of using an industrial strength RDBMS filter out the riff
raff.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
If life was fair, Elvis would be alive and all the impersonators
would be dead. -- Johnny Carson
Arkady Duntov
(<4237B958...@Hovnanian.com>) wrote:
> Arkady Duntov wrote:
>>
>> importantly, it's a proprietary product of a corrupt monopoly.
>
> Is it even their product? I thought Access was built on top of
> technology MS purchased.
They bought it from its original developer around fifteen years ago. I
think it's fair to say its their product now.
>> It certainly isn't. However, it's hard to beat for simple tasks.
>
> Therein lies the problem.
But it's a two-way problem.
> It allows simple people to crank out poorly designed applications. Not
> that everyone using Access is 'simple', but the rigors of using an
> industrial strength RDBMS filter out the riff raff.
Jet is by no means an industrial strength DBMS or even a strong DBMS.
However, I don't think there's anything that can beat Access for, say,
importing a text file, running a few, simple DML statements to fix up
and/or reduce the data, and then running some queries to see what the data
means and possibly exporting it for some other purpose. I've never seen
any other software package that could beat it for this kind of one-time
"analysis".
Ray Ingles
> Ray Ingles wrote:
>> IE and Outlook will install things without even *asking*. That's a
>> fundamentally broken model and recent history has borne that out. That
>> and forcing many applications to install and run as Administrator. As
>> Jim Richardson says, "Microsoft products are easy to administer. Anyone
>> can do it! Even if you don't want them to..."
>>
> You say, Ray, but automatic install and run without asking is done
> because many people actually want to do that.
People open up a conventional oven and reach in to check on food (e.g.
sticking a toothpick in a cake to see if it's done) all the time. They
do similar things with microwave ovens, too... but there are safety
interlocks so the radiation shuts off. This is because reaching into
an operating microwave oven is dangerous.
People want to smoke near gas pumps. (People want to smoke, period.)
You can find people that want all kinds of ridiculous things.
Installing software is a dangerous operation. It needs to be treated
with care. Microsoft chose to sow the wind on this one, and they are
now reaping the whirlwind.
> They want to click on a link and have the expected thing just happen.
> You say that is insecure, and you are correct in some ways, but it
> is not a black and white issue.
Data and executables are two different things. Movies and pictures
can (and should) be treated one way, executables another. Of course,
Microsoft's formats are so incestuous it's hard to tell sometimes
(VBA viruses, anyone?) and the file extension system is so broken it
can be impossible to tell just what will happen when you click on a
file or attachment.
> You can lock down an XP machine just as you can lock down a linux
> machine. You know that, of course, but you say linux is better
> because you can lock it down.
Locking down an XP machine is *harder*. There are apps that won't
install and won't run without Administrator privilege. Most people
just run as Administrator to avoid the hassle. Linux, being based
on decades of Unix experience, has no problems with regular users
being able to do safe things and unsafe things requiring more
privilege.
> Where is your market data? All in your head, I'm sure! On the one hand
> you claim that Microsoft has a monopoly because the OEMs are afraid that
> they cannot sell computers with any other OS.
No. I assert that OEMs in general are afraid that, whatever options
they offer, they *must* offer Windows in order to be profitable. And
Microsoft, to stifle competition, does not allow OEMs that get a volume
discount to provide systems in a dual-boot configuration.
Microsoft has used OEM deals to prevent competition before (DR-DOS,
I've quoted internal emails to you that shows this was their purpose),
the DOJ hit them for the same tactics with regard to web browsers...
this is no surprise to anyone.
> Then you say that there is a market for computers with multiple OS
> loaded. You have no data,
Yeah, people want this:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=+dual-boot+laptop
I did a bit of Googling and found *one* place that would do it. And,
if you want Windows, you pay retail OEM price, no volume discounts.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Plan B? We're still working on Plan A."
- Geoff Morris
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
That depends on what sort of 'analysis' you think you can do with
'simple DML statements'. Much of the natural language recognition and
processing I've seen is well beyond the capabilites of DBMS systems
alone (even the industrial strength ones).
In fact, Windows poor support for serious parallel processing (like
Beowulf clusters) has pretty much ruled it out of this kind of
application.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Telemark: If it was easy, they'd call it snowboarding.
Arkady Duntov
(<423A60AF...@Hovnanian.com>) wrote:
> Arkady Duntov wrote:
>>
>> However, I don't think there's anything that can beat Access for, say,
>> importing a text file, running a few, simple DML statements to fix up
>> and/or reduce the data, and then running some queries to see what the
>> data
>> means and possibly exporting it for some other purpose. I've never seen
>> any other software package that could beat it for this kind of one-time
>> "analysis".
>
> That depends on what sort of 'analysis' you think you can do with
> 'simple DML statements'.
I think I also said "simple analysis."
> Much of the natural language recognition
Stop right there! Access is good, maybe, for simple tasks.
> In fact, Windows poor support for serious parallel processing (like
> Beowulf clusters) has pretty much ruled it out of this kind of
> application.
Of course it does. However, I don't need parallelism or clusters to import
a text file to do some small manipulations.