Microsoft Case Slogs Forward 171
jchristopher writes "The government asked an appeals court to issue an order moving the Microsoft case back to the trial court as soon as possible today. According to this Cnet article, such an order could hint at an injunction blocking the distribution of Microsoft's Windows XP. "
Either way... (Score:1)
Now before the Linuxites come out en mass and say that MS losing ground is a good thing, I have to beg to differ. As we saw, ALL internet/technology stocks got a boost from Yahoo. And that was Yahoo. Imagine if MSFT had a dump of stock? Even moreso, as the technology bubble contines to rupture on Wall Street, the main thing that keeps the US economy alive is consumer confidence; people are still spending, despite the problems companies are having. If that confidence disappers, it could lead to stagflation. In reality, I know a bunch of MS stock holders were hoping for a split. Congrats, you've just doubled your stock.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to preach gloom and doom. But I think that we should consider the more distant effects. A sharp change is almost never good...it doesn't give people and options enough time to react and think clearly. Just my thoughts.Re:How to title your new Operating System. (Score:1)
97% of people will have no idea what you are talking about, 2% will have a acid flashback to the terrible little Sun IPX that some previous employer made them use, and the final 1% of pimply faced Linux geeks will want to mod up as funny.
What groundbreaking news! (Score:2)
Gee, that was certainly worth posting a story for...
Why are we still talking about MS? (Score:2)
Uh, no. (Score:3)
No, it's not. The whole point of being a business is for one single, unswerving goal: to make as much money as you possibly can. Customers are irrelevant, except for sucking as much money out of them as possible. Product is irrelevant, except where used to get customers to give you as much money as possible.
Don't take the romantic view of businesses "serving the public," "making a better product," or any such nonsense. They have no interest in making something better. They merely balance what they must put out against what they bring in, such that they're bringing in the most and putting out the least. If a given company could sell you a little box that did nothing for $1000, don't you think they would? (Jokes about Windows PCs aside ;-)) Tech support? Customer service? Think that means they care about you? They don't. These things are merely to keep you coming back, and to comply with any laws that keep them from being sued into the ground, etc.
The point of a 100 meter race is to get to the end before everyone else. There are usually usually rules about interference... and if there aren't, it would be foolish not to take every advantage against your opponent you could get, right? And even if there were, if you don't get caught, it's not a rule, right? (There are, of course, honorable people, who wish to win "fairly," but if the norm becomes interfering with competitors, then they'll either quit, seeing that winning "fairly" is impossible, or they'll quickly change their definition of what is fair.)
Same with business, except I've yet to see an honorable business. There is no law, unless you get caught. Every advantage is to be taken, to make as much money as quickly as possible. The ultimate logical end of this is to control the entire market, crushing competition, and extracting as much money as possible from everyone else.
I used to think differently about these things. Then I got to know some business people. Now I detest it all more than ever before.
Not the first... (Score:2)
I know Windows 2000 falls into that category, and I suspect this is a trait that has been part of the NT line for quite some time, but I have no direct proof of that other than we do IP spoofing using NT4 at work for testing.
The only reason Steve Gibson got his undies in a bunch about this was because now HOME USERS will have STANDARD TCP/IP stacks that they can EXPLOIT.
[sorry had to throw in some weird upper case to sound wild-assed like Mr. Gibson]
Re:Windows XP being blocked? (Score:2)
XP has some incredibly nice features, such as the multi-user desktop, etc.
Re:Windows XP being blocked? (Score:2)
You can leave yourself logged in, and at the logon window it will list the users with open sessions and you can select between them.
Re:mod parent up! (Score:3)
But it had limitations because of processing power. As the hardware became faster, it became more easily possible to do voice recognition.
Do you remember when Wolfenstein 3D came out? How about Doom? Quake?
Again, as the video cards became faster and more capable of handling the 3D texturing the games became more full featured graphically.
Speaking of 3D, do you remember when Jurassic Park came out? How incredible the images of the Dinosaurs were? Or even Terminator 2 and how incredible the morphing terminator was.
All of these things were possible because of faster/better/cheaper hardware.
It wasn't because the programmers were lousy, or the design sucked. It was because they wanted to do something and that something required more power!
I've been using personal computers since 1982 when my VIC-20 had 5K of RAM and ran at 1Mhz. Do you seriously want to go back to using a machine like that?
Re:New OS means new PC sales?? (Score:2)
Hooray!
=)
But seriously, I think this is the sad state of the world. =( Then again, usually there's no harm of getting a newest OS when you buy a new machine, but it's definitely not necessary.
Re:Windows XP being blocked? (Score:2)
Re:Given the Bush Administration (Score:2)
And the funny thing is that Microsoft called Open Source software cancer... (as well as virus, pac man, anti-american, ...) Hey, they almost went as far as calling it the root of all evil.
___
Yeah, but what about.... (Score:2)
You mentioned competitors that really hate MS.
But what about geeky competitors who really REALLY hate MS?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Re:Let's get this over with! (Score:1)
I also want this over and done with, but only with the proper outcome.
Re:The threat to Linux (Score:1)
(that was toungue in cheek: I know there are some beta releases of some pieces of .NET out there.)
Re:XP is not the salvation of the PC industry (Score:2)
And why is that? Microsoft has had decent tech on the shelf for years and despite many past promises to deliver it to home users, they always managed to crap out another 98SE or ME version of DOS/Windows.
(Windows 95 was a genius bit of compatibility engineering, not to mention it hit the 4MB RAM target barely, and I can understand why it was released. It was a critical piece in ending the Really Bad Old Days era of crap PC hardware. However, the irony that MS is still selling this compatibility solution except minus all the compatibility bits is lost on me.)
but because you're running 9x, there is a very slight chance that even if I do everything right your computer will stop working and you'll have to reinstall everything."
OEMs have been crying to Microsoft for years to reduce support costs, and Microsoft's answer has usually been More Of The Same. I've yet to get an adequate explaination on why NT has been 'shelved' the way it has over the years. I can suspect internal politics or some bizarre monopoly-driven logic that I can't understand. I can even suspect your
Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy that Microsoft is finally fulfilling their promise of the early 90s and selling NT as the next-gen conumer OS. I'm just disheartened and confused that it took as long as it did.
My suspicion is that MS has finally prepared themselves for an era where the OS company is either split off (by force or by choice) or that long term desktop OS profit growth will be virutally nil so they are sticking the whole thing in maintenance mode. I can't help to think that maybe XP is the gotterdammerung of Microsoft Operating Systems.
--
Re:Windows XP being blocked? (Score:5)
Re:Given the Bush Administration (Score:5)
Thank you! I'm glad someone besides me finally said that. I am extremely pro-business and extremely conservative, but I've spent the last five years now working on The Microsoft Boycott Campaign [msboycott.com]. Look how many conservatives are working with Ms opposition groups. Bob Dole and Robert Bork?? AND Ralph Nader. Considering that, who can still actually believe only liberal anti-business people oppose The Behemoth? Microsoft is a threat to you no matter where you are politically - a company that doesn't care about consumers or competition one bit. It's like cancer or some other deadly disease - you don't have to have any certain political viewpoint to be against it.
Yes (Score:2)
Well, yes, but this is because most PC buyers don't get what an OS actually is, nor what to do when they've fucked up their Windows installation for one reason or another-- the simplest solution for many is just to start afresh with a new PC. Particulaly virulent is the meme that computers somehow get `arthritis' become intrinsically slower at time goes on, hence need replacing. I'm not sure which marketroid started that one, but I'm sure his company rewarded him with a small Caribbean island for his troubles
I've just about beaten my own Dad out of the mentality that when his P133-based computer gets `bogged down', the solution is to delete all the gaudy, ad-laden cover-CD software he's installed to run on startup, or (once) reinstall the OS, not replace the whole machine
So yes, basically, there's no money in tech. support for the masses of home users out there: properly qualified people will cost 30-40 quid an hour, and economics dictates that if you've got an older machine but don't know a friendly wizard who'll help out with a serious problem, it's going to be a better investment just to get a new one. If the PC market wasn't so cut-throat, maybe PC makers could charge for and compete on quality of technical support rather than how much they've skimped on it.
Matthew, very relieved at the fact he's graduated and no longer playing tech. support to all and sundry around college
TCP/IP is not an "OSI standard"! (Score:1)
Re:I'm torn on this... (Score:2)
The reality of it, computer science is the base of the tech industry IMHO. Thats where the real `innovation is happening. Now, if I learned anything in comp-sci is that progress is made by working with abstractions. You can build two sets of tools (A & B) and use the two of them to build an even better tool = C. Now tool C wouldnt of been possible/realistic without A & B.
Unfortunately Microsoft is a -great- industry catalyst. Case in point, look at Ximian with now Mono, a
All I can say is I am glad that MS & AOL didnt come to a deal. I hope that they can hate each-other enough to pull a checks and balances for each-other as MS is realizing by its whole
(Sony+AOL+RedHat) ~= Microsoft?
I believe on a fair playing field, yes.
Not very often that I agree with ESR. (Often times his ego muddles what he is trying to say)
As much as we all hate Microsoft, and as much as I feel that they have ruined many companies and in certain cases stifled true innovation I do feel that they can be co-existed with having strong competition and innovation on the part of the open source community. Justice in its true sense wont happen today or tomorrow, but as every new user joins the linux movement, its a very tiny string that, with millions of others, will eventually pull the ogre down. Unfortunately, people are not patient to wait for that to happen naturally.
--------------------
Would you like a Python based alternative to PHP/ASP/JSP?
Punishment for engaging in capitalism? (Score:1)
Besides, couldn't you find a monopoly anywhere you looked, if you just narrowed the scope enough? It seems that if Microsoft were really pawning off below-market quality at market (or above) prices, competitors would come around looking to make some cash with offerings closer to market levels. No, I'm not talking about startups, but the real companies who can make a difference - the IBMs of the world.
To be fair, shouldn't we be equally suspicious of people who complain to regulators about "unfair business practices" and "monopoly abuse"? After all, it is easier to lobby and manipulate the coercive powers of the state than it is to actually get off your arse and compete.
Re:Um, no. No, wait... NO! (Score:1)
Having a better product incorporates many things, one of which is offering better services for your product. Microsoft excels in this arena by making their products extremely accessable to the users of their product through their, albeit, questionable business practices. Practices that can also ultimately be used by their competitors - something which is hardly ever mentioned, but is very relevant.
Ethics aside, Microsoft has not inherently coerced anybody to do anything. At least, not that has been shown. Remember, only the state has the power to do that.
The only laws they broke are the very laws we are debating. My argument here is not the fairness of the laws, though there may be some merit there, but of the contradictory nature of having a set of rules and restrictions (in the form of antitrust and business regulation) that are at odds with the very nature of the system they regulate.
Regulators and "trustbusters" are a peculiar bunch, anyway. If a company is charging a price that is too high, they claim "monopoly abuse." If companies charge the same price, they claim "collusion." If a company charges a price that is too low, they claim "predatory pricing." Does anything satisfy these people? Or do they just hold a general grudge that somebody, somewhere, is making money?
OS/2's failure could indicate that Microsoft is merely doing everything right and that the profit margins in the bundled desktop OS/application market are very small. IBM could have tried much, much harder if they really cared about making a difference in that market. Perhaps they were afraid they would be targeted by regulators themselves for such actions.
Re:No the point it efficient allocation of resourc (Score:1)
However, I'm not sure that I agree with your concern about patents. First, because a solution to the problem would probably cause more harm than good (increased regulation of patent granting, and potential arbitrary patent revocation that is based on shifting political winds). Second, because the same patent "abuse" can be employed by competitors.
The use of patents you have detailed is almost a necessary evil of the system. The initial explanation for patent granting is the protection of intellectual property, as private ownership is crucial to accurate price assessment, which leads to efficency in the market. Is the government grant of such mini-monopolies worse than any alternative system? That could lead to another discussion.
Re:Punishment for engaging in capitalism? (Score:1)
In fact, true capitalism was probably never practiced in the U.S. Even before the trustbusting era, there were monopoly-granting tariffs on imported goods and engagement in true criminal business practices that went unaddressed.
Re:Jesus... (Score:1)
Re:The threat to Linux (Score:1)
Re:why not? (Score:2)
Re:Windows XP being blocked? (Score:2)
From where I'm standing, XP isn't going to be the Holy Grail analysts are making it out to be.
Re:XP is not the salvation of the PC industry (Score:2)
Everything hardware, the price of Windows, Office, etc certainly hasn't come down. Thus preloaded Microsoft stuff forms an even bigger proportion of the cost of a new machine...
Re:If XP is blocked.. (Score:1)
----
Re:Only on Slashdot... (Score:1)
----
I was referring more to certain practices... (Score:1)
I'm sorry you didn't have time to reply to the rest of my "drivel".
Re:Only on Slashdot... (Score:1)
Perhaps to do a proper comparison I would need to test every aspect of the automobile and get right down to the metal and do a part-by-part analysis, but I would argue that the Photoshop is like a Ferrari in that you can sit at it for only a few moments and realize that it possesses more power than you could probably ever find legal uses for.
Re:Partialy true. (Score:1)
I would argue that one of the most recent quality advancements to come out of Microsoft R&D is the optical technology to be found in their recent lines of mice. Granted, someone is going to post now "hey, optical mice were around in 1978!", but not at the consumer level as MS has introduced them.
Maybe also you could count the natural language identification features of MS office, some of the neat features of the Visual C++ line (edit and continue, etc), on and on. They've done a lot of neat things.
I don't think MSR had much to do with BOB, although I think they did do the work on the paperclip... hey, nobody bats 1.000.
Re:Only on Slashdot... (Score:1)
Your opinion on Microsoft's pricing is a bit subjective - some would argue that Microsoft's operating systems (I'm talking primarily about Windows 2000 now... Windows 9x/ME were not terribly expensive, and are, I will agree, total garbage) *are* the Mercedes of the OS world. No, they may not be the best servers. No, they may not be the best at all tasks. They are the best at playing games, a case can be made that they are the best development environments (that very much depends on what type of software you are developing), a case can be made that they are the operating systems that strike the best balance between power and usability, etc.
Linux is NOT the Mercedes of the OS world. Nor are any of the *BSDs. If anything, they would be more in the hotrod/car modification camp... a small market share of people comprised mainly of those who like to get under the hood and make things work better. Also people who need a solid, stable workhorse. Hardly luxury automobiles.
Abusing market share is one of the benefits of HAVING market share, as long as the company is not a monopoly (and Microsoft isn't, as there are alternatives, market share != monopoly... if you make by far the best product, in theory you deserve 100% market share even if there are alternatives... note that I am NOT saying MS makes the best product, what I AM saying is that their market share % is not indicative of their monopoly status) it's fine. If you do not use Windows, you cannot use their other products, so their market share abuses are transparent to you.
I do not think that including WordPad on desktops by default is a tricky move to tie in the consumer to Word early on... if Microsoft sold an OS without basic word processing functions (requiring some formatting, therefore *.txt is not adequate) a large segment of the marketplace would be very upset... just the same as people would now be upset if they sold an OS without a browser. People have come to expect certain things as an integral part of the computing experience. Microsoft long ago made the shift from a bare-bones OS provider to a platform provider, and part of being a platform is providing those basic services with the actual OS.
Besides, Word Perfect can read those *.doc files just fine. So can most other word processors.
Monopoly status is not fairly defined as "when a company provides better alternatives to other programs, therefore giving the consumer no reason to buy product XYZ". That's called the free market at work. The fact is that those alternatives do exist, and as long as they do exist, MS is not a monopoly.
They could have 100% market share in every single market, but if there are still alternatives, the reason for this would be that they simply provided the better products. Note that "better products" does not always imply "technical superiority".
You're rather wrong with your opinion of how much it would cost to launch a new os. Here, let me break it down:
Ma Bell = monopoly because they owned the infrastructure, and even to work at all, you needed an infrastructure. If you wanted to use a telephone, you went to Ma Bell. You had no choice. Zero. None. You couldn't build a new phone network because it would cost billions.
That's exactly my point... (Score:1)
Nobody says that everyone has a right to use their computers with whatever software they want for free (okay, someone does, but let's not get RMS in this discussion
Um, yes, I do... (Score:1)
There are alternatives to Microsoft products. I have machines that do not run any Microsoft software and do exactly what I want them to do. Therefore, they are not a monopoly. There are some things that you can only do with Microsoft products, but that's their right as a company - there are some things you can only do with fast Internet access, some things you can only do with a Ferrari, some things you can only do with Mutt the email reader.
They are not a monopoly... (Score:2)
The definition of "monopoly" is that a company is the only game in town for a service that is somehow necessary for many/most people. I'm sure a good lawyer (I am not one
The price can be raised a certain amount without any effect on sales. This is true. This would also be true for countless other things in the marketplace - basketball sneakers, movie tickets, cd prices for top acts, etc etc etc.
The fact is that the price of a pair of Nikes can go from $60 to $120 and sales will not be hurt a bit because PEOPLE WANT NIKES and will pay whatever Nike asks for them *within reason*. If you charge $3,000 for a pair of Nikes, people will stop buying them.
Microsoft software can go from $100 to $400 and people will still buy it because the change is *within reason*. Microsoft COULD NOT CHARGE $3,000 for a Windows license because - pay attention to this part - PEOPLE WOULD STOP BUYING IT.
Do you know what that means? It means Microsoft is operating in a free marketplace. It means there are alternatives. It means people are not *forced* to use MS products. Let Microsoft raise their prices as much as they wish - as long as people keep paying, more power to them! Same with Nike. I do not choose to wear Nike shoes made for 20 cents in some third world country and sold to our materialistic society for over a hundred dollars, NOR do I choose to use many Microsoft products simply because I do not wish to pay that much for most of my software.
There are alternatives. Nike is not a monopoly, Microsoft is not a monopoly. Price raising is not a good indicator of Monopoly status. Period.
Um, if Microsoft was shut down tomorrow, it would be YEARS before other companies could catch up to the level of innovation found in products such as MS Office (I notice nobody answered my challenge to name a better office suite), not to mention the fact that it would be patently unfair.
If you shut down the Church of Scientology and took all of their money, spending it on high-grade rat feces would be a better expenditure of the money than what it was previously spent for, and hell, Good Things(tm) could even be done with it, but you know what? IT WOULD NOT BE FAIR. Corrupt cults like the CoS have a right to make money if people are stupid enough to send it to them, and Microsoft has a right to make money and have whatever market share they wish so long as there are alternatives to Microsoft products and people are still buying up everything they release in droves.
It's not very difficult to understand.
How many consumers know? (Score:2)
Furthermore, Linux has been in the press NONSTOP for the last couple years. You really exhibit typical Slashdot arrogance by suggesting that "normal consumers" are just so stupid that they honestly do not realize that there are alternatives to Microsoft products. Give me a break. That's a happy rationalization for why MS has such a high market share.
The fact is that people are VERY aware of MS alternatives, but simply believe that Microsoft products are *better*. And for the needs of many of those people, they are one hundred percent correct.
"There are altrernatives to Mercedes, and consumers know that. Mercedes is not a monopoly in any market, Same with Photoshop. People actually buy it because it is good, not because it is the only product. Those who buy it know of the alternatives."
I'm sorry friend, I didn't shoot myself in the foot. There are alternatives to Microsoft products, and people know of them. And the alternatives to Microsoft products are MUCH more well known than the alternatives to Photoshop. Actually, I can only name one Photoshop alternative and that is Paint Shop Pro... and that's a rather obscure program.
Mac OS is quite a bit more well known than the GIMP or PSP, sorry to burst your bubble. People buy Microsoft software because their mother has it and their cousin has it and it does what they want it to do - plays their mp3s, reads their email, loads their games. That's it.
They know of alternatives. They don't want them. High market share doesn't make Microsoft a monopoly, nor does it make Adobe a monopoly with Photoshop - it makes them good companies (however much that hurts you to admit).
Blah blah blah, if you really think the government is any better a steward of our freedoms than the corporations, you need to do a bit of a history study.
Re:Only on Slashdot... (Score:2)
I said that people require a basic word processor *with formatting*, and stated that this is why Notepad is not adequate. Read my post more carefully. I don't think many people would use WordPad as a primary text editor, nor does it lock anyone in to the MS Office path, because WP and SO can read Docs, as you agree.
And it is rather flimsy to say "It's MS's format therefore they do it best", WP and SO can read a
So the whole bundled word processor issue isn't really substantial at all in any way. If it's the OEMs job to include a word processor, then explain to me why RedHat, Slackware et al include 129491249219 word processors/editors in their base distribution? The fact is that people expect to see a basic word processor bundled with their operating system. Period, end of story.
I can't really address your "viable alternative" argument as that is so subjective it's not even funny. For a graphic designer, Mac OS 9/X is probably a perfectly viable alternative to Windows. For a programmer, Linux/*BSD is probably a perfectly viable alternative.
You need to give an example of for whom there is no viable alternative to Windows. For the "easy to use" segment, you have Be or any number of KDE/GNOME preconfigured Linux machines. *shrug*
Only on Slashdot... (Score:4)
It has been summed up a THOUSAND times before by people with more knowledge of the subject than I have (I am but a student, and though I have followed the personal computer industry for 10 years or so, I have never been involved in any corporate decisionmaking so I can't really speak with authority on why businesses choose one thing over another), notably Dan Heskett, whose posts I read regularly simply because he seems to be one of the few voices of reason in most of these Microsoft threads.
Anyway, here's the deal:
Microsoft is here to stay. That cannot be argued. If the government stepped in and clubbed Microsoft like a baby seal until they were little more than a pool of blood on the floor, it may please the endless drones of "GO LUNIX M$ SUX!" people on
If you create a company, what do you want, what is the American way: create company from nothing, build it up to huge levels, make $millions. People don't create companies to serve humanity. Microsoft may do things that are bad for consumers.
BOO-FUCKING-HOO.
Listen, it's "bad for consumers" that Adobe charges $500 or $600 or whatever it is these days for Photoshop. It's "bad for consumers" that Mercedes charges $55,000 for an automobile. The NERVE of those companies! It doesn't cost them that much to make the product!
Economics 101: Good things cost money to make. For the *vast, vast, vast* majority of people in the computer industry, writing open source software is good for little more than a warm happy feeling in your belly due to knowing that you did something good to help out other people. There's a reason Adobe Photoshop is 700 times the program that any OSS alternative is (you GIMP weenies can burn in hell, I'm not even an advanced user and even I can tell it crumbles and dies next to Photoshop for advanced tasks) and it's because they charge so much money for the software that they can afford to spend money on real research and top employees.
Look at Microsoft's R&D budget. It is absolutely *outrageous*. They don't use all that money researching new ways to dominate the world, kids: believe it or not, MS has and is doing some great things. I bet half of you out there posting on your l33t linux boxes are using a Microsoft mouse or a Microsoft keyboard. Why? Because when compared to other products in their price point, they absolutely dominate all ass.
Yes, you can buy better keyboards. You can probably buy better mice too (though I've never seen them), but you sure as hell can't for the $40 one will typically run you from MS. And it sure as hell won't be as well supported.
So software companies have a right to make money, have a right to do so however they see fit. Consumers be damned: in a free market, if the consumers get fucked, they fuck the company right back. That's the way the market works.
ANTITRUST = MONOPOLY PROTECTION, **NOT** blanket consumer protection!
If I create a company tomorrow and say that I will shine your shoes for $800, that is outrageous, it is bad for consumers, but the market will kick my ass because there are alternate ways to get your shoes shined, and shoe shining isn't even a necessity to begin with.
Re:XP is not the salvation of the PC industry (Score:2)
Converting a one hour MPEG-2 recording to MPEG-1 so I can burn it to a VCD. This can take about 2 hours on a P3-933. You can never have enough CPU.
Of course, this has nothing to do with XP making PCs sell well. Your point is well taken. I'm just nitpicking the idea that we have all the CPU power we could ever use!
Personally, with all of the nosey crap and DRM junk in XP, I'll not be installing it anywhere on my machines. I can live without WMP 8 thank you.
They do (Score:2)
Re:And after we destory MS what then ? (Score:1)
you will not put MS out of business - they may pull out of the US but that will have a far far greater impact on your economy than you ever want to think about (possible a depression when the collapse of dependant companies is taken into account)
This is why MS may need to be preemptively broken (or modified in some way). If the loss of one company could cause as much damage to a single nation's economy, as you seem to believe, then that company is a threat to the very country that it resides in. Guess what that's known as. A MONOPOLY! Guess what Microsoft is being prosecuted for!
shouldn't we be developing a more user friendly and desktop friendly OS for the home market - something which doesnt require the level of knowledge most Linux Distros need ? (the home users - moms and dads - wont ever run the product at the level it is now)
Um, no? What needs to happen is Compaq, Gateway, Dell, et. al. need to start distributing a nice Linux desktop. Maybe with a well proofed Wine setup and heavily secured remote admin tools. Provide a mirror of that setup on a recovery CD (that is totally automated), and most "moms and dads" will be fine. That's about what they do for windows now. What, do you think a "mom" or "dad" could survive the windows install, or even really use it effectively? I'll say this now: They don't. They only use it because it's on there, and the software they get runs on it. That's ALL.
Isnt it enought that we have the high ground as ethical and intelligent liberal thinking programmers with an ethic of producing the best possible solution ?
Uh huh. And we sit here and get nowhere. We may have the high ground, but one effort of the "movement," as it may be called (I guess), is to spread this high ground to everyone. We want the best, we want everyone to have the best (except the "l33t f3w(lz)"). One needs to be proactive to do this, but when a company can actively lock you out of markets simply by the use of PHB quality tripe (and exclusivity agreements), it gets hard, fast (only after the trial started were PC manufacturers able to sell servers NOT running NT without fear of losing their client (9X) license).
We won't utterly destroy MS. We'll fight them on multiple fronts, and if possible, render them irrelevant. They'll fade into the background, listed under various source distros and modules as "Legacy" and be forgotten. At least, that's what one would hope.
Oh, and it's those third world countries that are permitting it. Seeing as how are laws aren't supposed to reach into other countries, we can't really do much about it. And as far as the hacker ethic is concerned, they believe exactly what MS tells them, that "hackers" are dangerous, want to steal your credit cards and pirate your software.
Um, no. No, wait... NO! (Score:3)
No, sorry, thanks for playing. The "whole point" is being top dog by attracting customers, usually done by offering a better product. Is the point of a 100 meter race to beat your opponents mercilessly about the knees with a lead pipe so they can't run as well as you? No (unless you're Tonya Harding), the point is to run faster than they do.
Yes, they did. Whether or not you think it's fair, there are laws, and MS broke them.
Funny you should mention IBM. OS/2, anyone?
--
Re:Reasonable rationalle for an XP injunction (Score:2)
The previous injunction, the one tossed by the Appeals Court, was based on Jackson's opinion that MS was in violation of an existing agreement with the DOJ. The Appeals Court tossed the injunction on the grounds that the judge must make his decision based on contract law (it was an agreement), not based on antitrust law. The Appeals Court further stated that, under a broader antitrust action, MS's behavior might well be illegal.
Now we have had that broader action and the Appeals Court has agreed that many of the things that MS does are indeed illegal. In particular, code mingling so that it is impossible to remove the application code for the browser is illegal. Presumably, doing the same thing for other applications (media players, instant messaging) would also be illegal. Given the way that MS has trumpeted "integration" in WinXP, I would think that an injunction barring distribution of WinXP until MS proves that it is in conformance with the Appeals Court ruling is a very logical (indeed obvious) next step for the government's case.
Re:Windows XP being blocked? (Score:2)
Re:XP is not the salvation of the PC industry (Score:1)
Where did you see that? I'd take one of those...
why not? (Score:1)
As far as it not being over yet, that's nonsense. They have already been found guilty and should be punished immediately. They have a right to appeal, and if they win then the punishment can be withdrawn.
Murderers don't go walking around free during their appeal process, why should MS?
the difference (Score:2)
Jesus... (Score:2)
And people wonder why Joe Public doesn't take web-based news sources seriously...
Re:Let's get this over with! (Score:1)
But, unforunately, EVERYONE has had some amount of money diverted from programs that could use it to pay for the government's case against Microsoft.
Interested in weather forecasting?
Right on! (Score:2)
Great, there goes every single bit of hope that the PC industry may recover in Q4.
This is exactly why Microsoft should be punished severely, when an entire sector of the economy revolves around a single company
Right on the button. I feel the same way about the United States of America. America should be punished severely, when the world economy revolves around a single country.
I also know a few people personally that should be severely punished cause they're too successful as well.
Maybe we should start a gang?
Re:Windows XP will save PC sales just like Office (Score:2)
If I understand correctly, XP would be the 98/ME interface with underlying NT/2000 OS. So it might (for once) represent a more reliable OS for the home user, which would be truly new from MS. It will certainly be a bigger, more resource hungry OS, so when MS stop allowing sales of 98/ME and only allows sales of XP, anyone needing to buy a new OS will virtually be required to buy a heftier machine. Remember, with XP, you don't want to try upgrading too much after install, as this may require relicensing, and who knows what MS will do with that.
--
mod parent up! (Score:2)
Re:Um, yes, I do... (Score:2)
And that's where the problem lies. Your Ma Bell example before was a good one. The telephone wasn't the only way to communicate. You could send a letter or a telegraph, but you couldn't use the phone without Ma Bell's toll fees. And yet, by your own words they were a monopoly.
Same thing with Microsoft. You can not do a lot of things without a Microsoft OS, and while this may be their "right" as a company, it certaintly doesn't help consumers to be locked in by this. While it does benefit in some ways, like the peripherals and IE (which has it's downsides too) it can most certainly hurt. Things like the ILoveYou virus, which I just had to eradicate from a computer at work, are prime examples of Microsoft not being the ideal "choice."
For many people, windows software is a necessity, and the fact is that Microsoft is anticompetitive. If you don't believe that, then go look at the findings of fact, which were upheld by the appeals court. Microsoft doesn't compete, they crush the "competition" in a way that stifles true innovation and prevents a lot of good. Sure, we have a billion and one features for MS Office (yes, it is the best office suite out there) but how many of those do you actually use? How would MS Office have competed in the long run with Lotus or Corel or any of the other major players had MS not crushed them by bundling it cheaply with their OS a few years ago?
MS does have some good stuff, most notably Excel (the only MS product I actually like), but they also have a monopoly on many critical features.
Sure, you can run Be or Linux sans Office, but that's like sending a letter via the pony express rather than using the telephone.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Re:I was referring more to certain practices... (Score:2)
1) Slashdot itself isn't homogeneous. People have varying opinions.
2) The government is composed of a lot of different parts, with different goals. The MS case has little to do with the Napster case, and the fact that you want to put them together suggests that you're just looking to push some buttons.
3) Many people who are for the antitrust suit against Microsoft are for it because they believe that Microsoft stifles everyone else's freedom, and that the government can interfere with Microsoft's freedom in order to protect everyone else's.
4) Many people are against the Napster case are against it because they see Napster as a tool of getting around the overcharging monopoly that is the RIAA. These people see Napster as a tool for freedom, and the idea of the government shutting it down, especially if it is actually driving CD sales, is seen as being hurtful to consumers.
As TheFrood said, things aren't so homgeneous. You may want to consider this a bit more before getting angry at "Slashdot" for being hypocritical.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Windows XP being blocked? (Score:2)
Re:Windows XP being blocked? (Score:2)
If Windows XP is blocked (and I don't see that as at all likely), there is no question that the Nasdaq will sink below 1,000.
The fact that hardware manufacturers are counting on Microsoft to deliver XP is not Microsoft's fault, it's the hardware maker's fault for depending on Microsoft. If they could build their own killer app's, they wouldn't care if XP was blocked. But, of course, that would set the industry back 20 years when every manufacturer had their own closed and proprietary software for their computers.
Re:Good. (Score:2)
Not really when you take in account, that they have been found GUILTY and the only thing reverted is the punishment.
Its like if you would say, well, this murderer was found guilty, but since he apppealed death sentence, we should let him go free before we find appropriate sentence and litigate it in court to the end. I think that even injunction against WXP wouldn't be enough to bare microsoft from repeating its crime.
Re:Windows XP being blocked? (Score:2)
Jesus Christ... (Score:2)
You're right. These people are *morons*. (Score:4)
Doesn't anyone here read the financial news or watch CNN or FoxNews financial reports? The government is trying to expedite things because Microsoft has been in settlement talks with some of the States who've filed suit. Arizona (or was it New Mexico? I think Arizona) has already withdrawn itself from the suit.
The fact is that the MS case is waning, and the world at large just wants to get it over with "for the sake of the [stock] market". A few geeks like us who hate Microsoft, and a few competitors who *really* hate Microsoft, do not make up for all the ordinary people who use Microsoft products at home and work every day, and who see it as just a benign thing on their computer that helps them do stuff.
Like it or not, face it: the Court of Appeals has basically said that MS will not get broken up. Sure, their reasoning for remand was that Jackson misbehaved, but in reality do you think the next judge is going to order a break-up after the prior Appeals Court Smack-Down? Fuck no. Microsoft will get some injunctions handed to it not to engage in certain anti-competitive practices, such as forbidding OEMs from installing software (like AOL--you know AOL will make deals with big OEMs to get on the WinXP desktop, since their dealings with MS have crumbled), get a few fines, and that will be the end of it.
None of it will affect you or I or Microsoft even. The game is nearly over, and like it or not, even though Microsoft lost, they won--in that they will not be broken up, and they will most likely receive a little slap on the wrist now that the new DOJ and some of the States have changed tune.
Re:Windows XP being blocked? (Score:2)
What about separation between justice and state? (Score:2)
When a government put pressure on the justice system to take a certain decision, the necessary separation between the justice system AND the state is in jeopardy. No matter what the case is, microsoft, drugs, whatever, the separation should be in tact. Only THEN a justice system can be truely independent.
--
Re:XP is not the salvation of the PC industry (Score:2)
That's an interesting perspective, but my experience differs. I work for a consulting firm that deals with pretty big corporations and we find that the significant portions of desktop TCO are:
Companies are finding that they need to confront these issues and generally find:
For me, the best thing that the non-MS community can do is produce something to rival Terminal Server or Citrix. E.g. the ability to support _thin_ clients, management functionallity, a decent remote protocol (X is heavy!) offering client side caching, compression etc.
New OS means new PC sales?? (Score:5)
"We are hoping for and preparing for a jump in the (PC sales) category with the launch of XP,"
Has the general computer using population been brainwashed into thinking they have to buy a new PC to run a new operating system?
Re:XP is not the salvation of the PC industry (Score:2)
While I'm somewhat out of the loop on how the average (90%) of computer users are able to do anything with Win9x, I am aware that the support costs for such boxen can be quite unpleasant. If you want Windows, NT4 and 2k have lower TCO than 9x. It baffles me why businesses still have the majority of workstations running 9x.
To most home users Windows NT and Windows 2000 have never even existed. These folks are about to see what in their minds will be the greatest technological leap in computer technology since the GUI.... the computer that doesn't crash all the time. I'll RECOMMEND that home users purchase this damn thing just so I don't have to deal with another call where I have to help a friend install new device drivers and give him the "Okay, I will help you with this, but because you're running 9x, there is a very slight chance that even if I do everything right your computer will stop working and you'll have to reinstall everything." speech.
Windows 2000, in my experience, doesn't blow up when you plug in a USB whatzimagigger or install the latest version of Quake. 9x does. Simply the benefit Dell/Compaq/Gateway etc. will get from not having to handle grandma calling and asking why the screen turns blue when the computer turns on is going to dramatically impact a few profit margins.
Chances are if you're reading
--
Re:New OS means new PC sales?? (Score:2)
It's not brainwashing. They've been acting this way for years, so I'd chalk it up to human nature.
I worked at a cots/commercial/shrink-wrapped software company, and from dealing with customers about 12+ years ago, easily half of all add-on software is sold to most people as part of an initial package.
Much of it featureware covering tasks that people think they need but few people actually use; voice dictation, trip planning software, cookbook programs,.... If you cruse through a mega computer store, most of the programs sold are of this type.
It's kind of like buying a promise. Since the machine is programmable and can do nearly anything is a bonus. They don't want to deal with making it do those tasks...so you get pre-packaged boxes of software that they never use because it doesn't really satisfy the initial promise.
The only programs that actually get bought regularly are ones where people are forced to get them for one reason or another (Quicken, Word/Excel, ...).
Re:You're right. These people are *morons*. (Score:2)
Hmm, that story is still on the front page (well, actually, it's in the "Older Stuff" Slashbox, but anyway...) - it was New Mexico [slashdot.org] who settled.
--
Re:Only on Slashdot... (Score:2)
Isn't it kind of hard to compare two programs like this? You state yourself that you're barely even literate with GIMP, and you can "already" see how badly it compares to PS.
Isn't this like dumping a newbie onto a command-line UNIX terminal and telling them "Go!"??? Of course they won't see the power of the system (as compared to their familiar, oh-so-friendly OS make by MicroCrap) because they don't know how to use the advanced functions!!! This is the type of comparison you're making here; if you're going to compare two packages of software, at least compare them properly -- advanced functions vs. advanced functions, etc -- not as you've done -- GIMP's low-level functions vs. Photoshop's brand-new super-duper filtering plugins.
Granted, GIMP may very well NOT be as powerful as Photoshop - I'm not necessarily debating that; you just may want to do fair and informed comparisons in the future.
- Jester
Not only on Slashdot, dumbass. (Score:2)
I don't have time to respond to the rest of your drivel, but this paragraph deserves some attention.
No, this does not happen only on Slashdot. Almost anyone you talk to will praise certain government actions while condemning others, and you can see this reflected in the general media. The government is composed of such a large number of divisions and departments that it's bound to generate mixed opinions. Only a simpleton would think that government actions are all good or all bad.
TheFrood
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
hemos can't read. (Score:2)
Given the Bush Administration (Score:2)
I do recall that they replaced the old hand lawyers with a bunch of "beginners". (I need info to verify this)
The analogy I see is a possible similiarity to coding projects. You could replace the old guard with a bunch of hotshot code jockeys all rather young and very talented, etc. I can only hope that we have the legal equivalent of this in the legal geeks now on the job.
It would be very wonderful if the new crew were to give the MS bunch a rude surprise.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Re:Only on Slashdot... (Score:2)
You are absolutely, 100% correct. The distinction is that you DON'T have a monopoly in the shoe shine business, which is why you'd get your ass kicked in the market - competition would quickly put you out of business.
Microsoft, on the other hand, IS a monopoly. The price they charge for their products can go up and down with little effect on their sales.
This is one of the reasons we have government - to act as the voice, the agent of the people when things need to change. The government is not always correct (DeCSS, for example), but in the end, the power does reside with the people. If you yell loudly enough as a group, you will be heard.
It is not a crime for Microsoft to be a monopoly! It is however, illegal to behave in certain ways when you ARE a monopoly, which is what MS has done.
You talk about how action against MS is bad for the industry, bad for the economy. Well what if Microsoft was shut down tomorrow? All the dollars that had been wasted on OS licenses, Office, and CALs for NT server could have instead been invested in new companies, creating new jobs, and filling new needs - needs that haven't even been thought of yet! That's innovation, and that's what Microsoft is stifling with their actions.
Re:They are not a monopoly... (Score:2)
What? Do you really believe this? Everyone who works in the computer industry knows it, everyone on Slashdot knows it, and now a United States federal court has found that Microsoft is a monopoly.
Note: It is NOT a crime to be a monopoly. There is no jail sentence, fines, or any other sanctions. However, there are laws which regulate what you can and cannot do WHEN you are a monopoly, and those are the laws Microsoft has broken. (bundling, etc.)
Re:Um, yes, I do... (Score:2)
Well, the Federal Courts in the USA (where MS is based) disagree with you.
Re:If XP is blocked.. (Score:3)
I think Linux users, and to a lesser extent, Windows users, are more tolerant of bad user interface as long as the program is powerful.
Mac users are not like that. They expect programs to work in similar fashion and expect them to follow the user interface guidelines for the OS. (Yes, even Apple - they got SKEWERED in the Mac press for the interface of Quicktime 4).
So suggesting that everyone help port OpenOffice to MacOSX is great! I agree. But you've got to find a few graphic designers, user interface people, and documentation/help technical writers to come along to the porting party.
If you want it to succeed you have to play to the users, and on Mac, they expect a lot.
Re:Good. (Score:2)
You might want to read an article by Lawrence Lessig [stanford.edu], a professor at Stanford Law School [stanford.edu], on the The New Republic website [tnr.com] entitled "WILL MICROSOFT ADMIT IT HAS LOST? Antitrust and Verify" [tnr.com].
In the article, Prof. Lessig initially notes: Prof. Lessig concludes:
Delay of XP (Score:2)
There is so much money at stake that if Windows XP caused your computer to release a pack of rabid wild dogs into your house - the press would write "and it even comes with FREE pets!"
In other words no matter how bad XP is - it is going to get glowing reviews.
If you don't think all of those dollars have an effect on the legal system I suggest that you have someone whack you over the head with a two by four so as to knock some semblance of reality back into your life. I suspect that all along part of the motivation for the anti trust suit was to get Microsoft to turn loose of some of that pile of money that they have.
Windows 95 proved to Microsoft that you can sell the public anything if you spend enough money pushing it. I defy anyone anywhere to point to a more unstable, insecure, virus ridden joke of an 'operating system' than that pile of rotting dingo's kidneys that Microsoft called 'Windows 95'.
Microsoft seems to spend money on advertising in inverse relationship to how good the product they are pushing is: i.e. they spent a lot more on 95 than they did on NT - and they spent almost nothing on OS/2 when they were involved in it. IF XP keeps that trend up we can only look forward to something that will leave us wistful memories of the 'good old days of Win 95'.
By the way, has anyone noticed that Microsoft's attitude is that all of the power that you pay for in a new computer belongs to them? Basically what you are getting to pay for with new hardware is the privilege of running even slower bloat ware than the last OS. Computers are about 100 times as fast today as they were 10 years ago - I defy anyone to show how Windows 2K is doing 100 times as much work as Windows for Work groups 3.11 - but on today's machines W2K is no faster than WFW 3.11 would run on a ten year old machine. Recently a co-worker got a new 900 MHZ computer with W2K on it - when I asked him how he liked it he said "God - its slow". I never figured out how to make a Z80 with 64 K of memory feel slow - I am in awe of programmers who are able to make a 900 MHZ Pentium III with 128 Mb run sluggishly - Microsoft's programmers have truly put the 'K' into 'Kwality'.
Negotiations have failed (Score:2)
Considering the astonishing statements that Microsoft executives have made about what the appeal court ruling means and the equally astonishing statements they have made about what is or is not negotiable I have no doubt that the DOJ has given up on them and will let the court decide.
One thing you should really understand about this case. What I have seen in the press about what the appeals courts did and said ranges from highly "spun" to out right lies. The only way you can get a true understanding of how much trouble Microsoft is in is to read the appeals court ruling. Everything that Microsft has said about the ruling is a blatant and total lie.
StoneWolf
P.S.
IANAL, but for self protection I have learned to read a contract and a court ruling.
Re:Let's get this over with! (Score:2)
Especially after Microsoft lies often and repeatedly to him...waste his time, disrespect him, and he's not supposed to say what he thinks of them afterwards?
If he's to be pushed off cases for that behavior, more than half the US Supreme Court should be retired.
*morons*? Where? (Score:2)
Not waning. Microsoft has been shown to be a predatory monopoly. And the court said that they should not be broken up because long term efficacy cannot be assurred (contrary to what Nader has said on the subject). The is bad for Microsoft. It is bad because they have inherited an extremely large amount of liability in a very litigious society (sort of like putting a big red bull's eye on them and saying "sue me"). Over 100 suits are in court waiting for this to be finalized and any settlement still sets precedent (note that Caldera vs Microsoft was cited as precedent in the tying issue by the appelate court-- a suit that microsoft settled out before the trial). Microsoft is in trouble.
I do not hate Microsoft. They have been market bullies, but I cannot say that their net effect on the computer industry has been bad. In fact, Microsoft came into the industry with the idea of taking advantage of economy of scale so that they could undersell their competitors. Now that model is being shown to be non-sustainable, so they are looking at subscription revenues.
But if it were not for Microsoft, the PC would not be as ubiquitous as it is today. That also means that open source software would also be retarded. In a kind of ironic way, open source software is the logical outgrowth of the positive aspects of Microsoft's business model, and I think that is why the GPL in particular frightens them so much.
I think that the states will ask for an injunction against XP. But whether it is granted will be uncertain. I think that the courts will be careful regarding this, but that they will look at the integration of Hailstorm and XP with some skepticism.
Re:lets hope for the following resolution: (Score:2)
I hope not. The IDC had an interesting press release where they said that such a division would lead to less competition, not more (although Linux as an OS might do well). Particularly, Microsoft Office for Linux would be likely to crush all competing office suites on that OS. Freeing the office monopoly from the OS monopoly would not be a Good Thing (tm) for the industry, I think. You would, instead, have two predatory monopolies, rather than one...
Re:Given the Bush Administration (Score:5)
Given the Bush administration, and the perception that the administratioon is pro business, this is an interesting development, bound to put the MS drawers into a twist.
While I'm not speaking specifically with regard to the Bush Administration's position, in general it is a poor assumption to equate "pro business" with "pro Microsoft." Indeed, there are lots of pro business folks out there who believe that business in the computer industry would do a whole lot better without the bullying monopolistic tactics of Microsoft.
-Rob
Re:And after we destory MS what then ? (Score:2)
Re:Windows XP being blocked? (Score:2)
First many people have microsoft on margin; why not it's a pretty safe bet (profit and history wise at least.) But if msft goes does and those investments get called all these investors suddenly need to sell other investments to cover their debt - creating a buyers market in what ever they own. And microsoft owners tend to own tech stock.
Secondly share are often used as collateral against loans. With that collateral diminished suddenly other companies can't get their loans for capital. And with no capital no returns.
So yes the success of microsoft is a pretty major influence on the economy but it is natural in market capitalist economics for the market to be affected by the market leaders. If microsoft wasn't the market leader of tech stocks then somebody else would be. How they got there may be questioned but someone has to be there.
Of course this wouldn't be an issue if companies belonged to the labor and all property belonged to the republic (I think that's a different argument for another time.)
Re:Let's get this over with! (Score:2)
___
Look on the bright side... (Score:5)
I'm torn on this... (Score:5)
What I really, really HATE, though, is the complete buy-in of corporate IT/IS drones into MS. As a co-worker likes to tell me, MS was good at one point to solidify standards (back in the '80s). But we have progressed now to the point where we have standards bodies who can give us standards. For example, MS XP will be the first MS OS with an OSI standard TCP/IP stack? This took how many years? Also, all these corporate wankers deciding that MS is the best route? Come on, has there been a study where the MS OS route has resulted in a lower cost for support. Not that I've seen.
Overall, I don't really blame MS, I (now) blame all the lemmings who follow "the group" when it comes to anything relating to computers.
Re:Good. (Score:2)
What the court have found them guilty on is the OEM licensing terms. AFAIK, they have mostly stopped doing this licensing, no doubt due to the trial.
MS can (and will) argue, that such a ban of new products will kill it. Not being able to intreduce new prodcuts for a the trial's time span (very likely another couple of years at least, can come up to a decade) is a sure-fire way to destroy MS.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Re:Good. (Score:4)
Re:If XP is blocked.. (Score:2)
damned if you and damned if you don't. (Score:2)
I may be wrong here, but there is another very important factor in consumer and public confidence that comes into play. While what you say is true about an abrupt change wreaking havoc on the stock market, I don't think it will be longterm and I certainly don't think it will spell the end of Microsoft.
Consider that if the DOJ let MS off with a slap on the hand
I cannot see that the DOJ has any choice but to apply the anti-trust law and proceed to inflict some REAL pocketbook damages against MS. Suspending the release of XP is not going to appease anyone beyond the short-sited. They need to break the monopoly and free up the desktop and applications markets for real competition without intimidation from M$. That may very well send some shockwaves through the stockmarket in the interim, but it will hardly bring down M$, MS will just have to start playing on a more level playing field and considering they already have a greater chunk of the market, their chances are better than good to continue their success. The only difference will be that they will have to actually compete with other products and start providing quality.
I can see this as a win-win situation for business and consumers alike. It may even restore some confidence in government. Then again, maybe it's too simple and obvious to work.
XP is not the salvation of the PC industry (Score:4)
And after we destory MS what then ? (Score:2)
I also pointed out that MS products are all most home users and corporate customers want - there are as you all say alternatives out there but the MS lines dominate - NOTE im taling desktop only - i love Linux and run a number of Slackware and Caldera servers and Workstations and think it a far superior product for Web and Database (to name just 2)functions.
The reality is no matter what we may wish or pray for MS are not dead and not about to be. The US government is a Republican and Pro Business one. The company will not be broken up - this is not seen as a viable solution by most anymore and the sales of their products continue to grow - Win2k pro is at i think about 20% growth per month and their application market has never been stronger in its dominance of the home, SOHO and Corporate Desktop.
Im not in the US - im in Aus and down here the MS Anti Trust and Monopoly Trials are old news - not even seen on our media, the reality is that if MS pulled out of the US our government (and many others would bend over backwards for the jobs) you will not put MS out of business - they may pull out of the US but that will have a far far greater impact on your economy than you ever want to think about (possible a depression when the collapse of dependant companies is taken into account)
So think for a minute - the open source movement produces incredible software for free and provides an alternative to Microsoft.
Isnt it enought that we have the high ground as ethical and intelligent liberal thinking programmers with an ethic of producing the best possible solution ?
Isnt it enought that Linux has enable millions of kids around the world to develop new skills and grow into the industry heavy weights of toomorrow ?
I dont and never will subscribe to the Crush MS camp - this is short sighted to me - but ITS a RIGHT of people to have opinions and to be able to express them - so i have never and will never flame anyone for thos thoughts - and i will defend their right to express them as i would hope they would defend mine.
SO i suggest a thought - If MS products are fine for some people and not for others shouldn't we be developing a more user friendly and desktop friendly OS for the home market - something which doesnt require the level of knowledge most Linux Distros need ? (the home users - moms and dads - wont ever run the product at the level it is now)
Rather than trying to crush a company (and the 'war' has been going on for over 5 years and so far they are still getting bigger) we should provide an example of what many disparate people and cultures can produce when they work together.
Please dont bother flaming me - i understand what i have just said is going to offend some of you - i dont pretend some of what people say about things doesnt offend me - i simply choose to post intelligently -
And no i dont want to hear about the supposed illegalities and business practices of MS - they are redundant and coming from a country that allowed companies like Union Carbide, Dow Chemical, GE, Monsanto and many many others to pollute large swathes of the third world i feel a little hypocrtical - lets just be the best we can be and show the world what the hacker ethic is really all about.
Re:And after we destory MS what then ? (Score:2)
**
Actually thats a damn good point and one i missed - i commented the other day in a post about it. The fact is IMHO win isnt that hard to set up - most competent children can do it and if you dont know how chances are a friend or someone you know will and if you bought a Dell or similar then the process is as simple as bunging in a reinstall disk - Linux does need to get to this point - Very Very Good Point microlith
To add a further thing what i would love to see is GPL and Linux to the point where it becomes an easy choice for the consumer - a tick on an order form - then you can compare the OS's and choose what you want - sort of like buying a car - do you get the 4 or 6 cylinder engine, with or without aircon, manual or auto.
Maybe MS will become irrelevent then - who knows what will happen in the future - I simply would love to see a choice for all - from the average home user to the corporate IT manager.