469,326 Members | 1,423 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,326 developers. It's quick & easy.

Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Microsoft Hatred, FAQ

Xah Lee, 20020518

Question: U.S. Judges are not morons, and quite a few others are
not morons. They find MS guilty, so it must be true.

Answer: so did the German population thought Jews are morons by
heritage, to the point that Jews should be exterminated from earth.
Apparently, the entire German population cannot be morons, they must be
right.

Judge for yourself, is a principle i abide by. And when you judge, it
is better to put some effort into it.

How much you invest in this endearvor depends on how important the
issue is to you. If you are like most people, for which the issue of
Microsoft have remote effect on your personal well-being, then you can
go out and buy a case of beer on one hand and pizza on the other, and
rap with your online confabulation buddies about how evil is MS. If you
are an author writing a book on this, then obviously its different
because your reputation and ultimately daily bread depend on what you
put down. If you are a MS competitor such as Apple or Sun, then
obviously you will see to it with as much money as you can cough out
that MS is guilty by all measures and gets put out of business. If you
are a government employee such as a judge, of course it is your
interest to please your boss, with your best accessment of the air.

When i judge things, i like to imagine things being serious, as if my
wife is a wager, my daughter is at stake, that any small factual error
or mis-judgement or misleading perspective will cause unimaginable
things to happen. Then, my opinions becomes better ones.

Q: Microsoft's Operating System is used over 90% of PCs. If that's
not monopoly, i don't know what is.

A: Now suppose there is a very ethical company E, whose products have
the best performance/price ratio, and making all the competitors
looking so majorly stupid and ultimately won over 90% of the market as
decided by consumers. Is E now a monopoly? Apparently, beer drinkers
and pizza eaters needs to study a bit on the word monopoly, from the
perspectives of language to history to law. If they have some extra
time, they can sharpen views from philosophy & logic contexts as well.

Q: What about all the people in the corporate environments who are
forced to use MS products and aren't allowed the option/choice to use
Mac/Linux/UNIX?

A: Kick your boss's ass, or, choose to work for a company who have
decisions that you liked.

Q: What about MS buying out all competitors?

A: Microsoft offered me $1 grand for saying good things about them.
They didn't put a gunpoint on my head. I CHOOSE to take the bribe.
Likewise, sold companies can and have decided what's best for them.
It's nothing like under gunpoint.

Q: Microsoft forced computer makers to not install competitor's
applications or OSes.

A: It is free country. Don't like MS this or that? Fuck MS and talk to
the Solaris or BeOS or AIX or HP-UX or Apple or OS/2 or Amiga or NeXT
or the Linuxes with their free yet fantastically easy-to-use and
network-spamming X-Windows. Bad business prospects? Then grab the
opportunity and become an entrepreneur and market your own beats-all
OS. Too difficult? Let's sue Microsoft!

Q: Microsoft distributed their Internet Explorer web browser free,
using their “monopoly” power to put Netscape out of business.

A: entirely inane coding monkeys listen: It takes huge investment to
give away a quality software free. Netscape can give away Operating
Systems free to put MS out of business too. Nobody is stopping Sun
Microsystem from giving Java free, or BeOS a browser free, or Apple to
bundle QuickTime deeply with their OS free.

Not to mention that Netscape is worse than IE in just about every
version till they become the OpenSource mozilla shit and eventually
bought out by AOL and still shit.

• Netscape struggles, announced open browser source code in 1998-01,
industry shock
http://wp.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease558.html

• Netscape browser code released in 1998-03. Mozilla FAQ.
http://mozilla.org/docs/mozilla-faq.html

• AOL buys Netscape in 1998-11 for 4.2 billion.
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-218360.html?legacy=cnet

• Jamie Zawinski, resignation and postmortem, 1999-04
http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html

• suck.com, Greg Knauss & Terry Colon, 2000-04, Netscape 6 mockery
http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/04/10/
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_...s_netscape.zip

• Xah Lee, Netscape Crap
http://xahlee.org/Writ_dir/macos-talk/58.txt

Q: Microsoft implemented extra things to standard protocols in
their OS so that other OS makers cannot be compatible with their OS
while their OS can be compatible with all. They used this Embrace &
Extend to lock out competitors.

A: My perspective is this: suppose you are now a company who's OS sits
over 90% of computers (regardless how this come to be for the moment).
Now, lots of “standard” protocols in the industry is a result of
popularity (RFC = Really Fucking Common), and popularity resulted from
being free, from the RFCs of the fantastically incompetent by the
truely stupid unix tech morons. What can you do if you want to improve
these protocols? If you go with totally different protocols, then the
incompatibility with the rest 10% isn't your best interest. I would
adopt existing protocols, and extend them with improvements. Being a
commercial entity, i'm sorry that it is not my duty to release my
improvments to my competitors. Any of you incompetent IBM/AIX/OS/2 or
SGI/Irix or HP/HP-UX or Sun/Solaris or Apple/AU-X/Mac can do the same,
not that they haven't.

Of course, the universe of moronic unixers and Apple fanatics cannot
see that. The unix idiots cannot see that their fantastically stupid
protocols are fantastically stupid in the first place. The Apple
fanatics are simply chronically fanatic.

Q: Microsoft product is notorious for their lack of security.

A: In my very sound opinion, if Microsoft's OS's security flaws is
measured at one, then the unixes are measured at one myriad. If unixes
suddenly switch popularity with Windows, then the world's computers
will collapse uncontrollably by all sorts of viruses and attacks. This
can be seen for technical person who knows unix history well:

http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/freebooks.html (e.g.
ftpd/proftpd, inetd/xinetd, sendmail/qmail, X-Windows, telnet, passwd,
login, rsh, rlogin.)

• on the criminality of buffer overflow, by Henry Baker, 2001.
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_..._overflow.html

• Fast Food The UNIX Way:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_.../fastfood.html

• Jargon File: http://www.tuxedo.org/%7Eesr/jargon/

• The Rise of Worse is Better, by Richard P. Gabriel, 1991, at
http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html

and plenty other pre-90s documents to get a sense of just how
fantastically insecure unix was and is. Unix today is not just
technically slacking in the “security” department, but the unix
ways created far more unmanageable security risks that's another topic
to discuss.

The unix crime, is not just being utmost technically sloppy. Its entire
system and “philosophy” created an entire generation of incompetent
programers and thinking and programing languages, with damage that is a
few magnitude times beyond all computer viruses and attacks damages in
history combined. See also:

• Responsible Software License:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w...e_license.html

Q: Microsoft products are simply poor quality.

A: Perhaps this in general is true pre-1997. I think the vast majority
of MS products today have better performance/price ratio then
competitors. This includes their operating system, their input devices
(mouse & keyboard), their X-Box gaming console, their software game
titles, their software architectures and languages (.NET, C#), their
technologies (few i know: SMB), and many of their software applications
(suite of Office, which consistently ranked top since early 90s).

e.g. Tom's hardware review on x-box, esp in comparison with Sony
Playstation 2. (2002-02):
http://www4.tomshardware.com/consume...204/index.html

the leading role of MS Office products can be seen in MacUser &
MacWorld magazine reviews through out early 90s.

Q: BeOS was once to be bundled with PC, but MS meddled with it and
basically at the end fucked Be up.

A: BeOS is a fantastically fucking useless OS. No DVD player, No Java,
No QuickTime, No games, no Mathematica, no nothing. For all practical
purposes, fucking useless in a different way than every donkey unixes.
Not to mention the evil Apple computer, refused to pass the QuickTime
technology, and tried to prevent BeOS from running on Apple hardware by
refusing to release their PPC hardware spec. Be founder Jean-Louis
Gassee wrote an article about it. Who's fucking whom?

Q: X inc tried to do W, but MS threatened to depart.

A: Dear X inc., try to find a bigger dick for your needs. If you cannot
find any, too bad! Suck it up to the big brother and hold on to what
you can get! If you have the smarts, milk him dry! Free country, free
to choose partnership. Ladies, previous night's indiscretion is not
rape the morning after.

Q: I'm not a beer bucket or pizza hole, but i want to do research
over the web. Is there any free stuff on the web i can grab? I'm an
OpenSource advocate, i demand free things.

A: •
http://www.moraldefense.com/Campaign...AQ/default.htm
(The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_repo.../friedman.html (The
Business Community's Suicidal Impulse by Milton Friedman, 1999-03)
local copy

Q: I'm thinking of putting my wife and daughter on the table. What
do you suggest to begin with?

A: Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell:
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_di...economics.html

Q: Are you confident enough to bet your wifes and daughters for
what you say?

A: No. But I put my reputation in.
-------
This post is archived at:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w...hatredfaq.html

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/

Oct 15 '05
476 16110

<ax**@white-eagle.invalid.uk> wrote in message
news:xO*******************@fe2.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
His comments are not applicable to America. They are applicable to a
country where the government owns the economy. No reply is needed to his comments except to point out that they only
apply to a communist or totalitarian state. We don't have one here, so
his
argument doesn't apply.
The last time I looked, property taxes were enforced in many states of
the USA. Do you deny this?
What do property taxes have to do with Microsoft?
I am not saying "because you are a communist, your argument is wrong".
I
am saying, "because your argument is based upon communist or totalitarian
premises about the relationship between the government and the economy,
it
does not apply to the United States, and we were talking about the United
States."

Then you are sadly deluded if you think that the US government does not
make decisions on the economy.


That's true. Of course, I do think the US government makes decisions on
the economy.

DS
Oct 24 '05 #301
In comp.lang.perl.misc Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:35:13 GMT, ax**@white-eagle.invalid.uk wrote,
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
I see that you cannot make a reasoned argument against the fact that
property in the form of houses is taxed in America.

And what has his inability to do that to your satisfaction got to do
with the price of eggs?


Not that I care much since eggs bring on a rather strong reaction
within me, but his arguments were totally false.

Axel

Oct 24 '05 #302

<ax**@white-eagle.invalid.uk> wrote in message
news:3y********************@fe2.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
Not that I care much since eggs bring on a rather strong reaction
within me, but his arguments were totally false.


So you maintain that the United States government owns its economy?

It might be instructive to google for "non-government economy". Not even
the Chinese government claims to own its country's economy.

DS
Oct 24 '05 #303
joe
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
"Antoon Pardon" <ap*****@forel.vub.ac.be> wrote in message
news:sl********************@rcpc42.vub.ac.be...
Microsoft had something you need so badly that you could not go into
business without it. So they demanded from you that you pay them what
their
software was actually worth to you. That is not extortion. Everyone who
sells something tries to get the maximum possible value for it.

If a company wants to be paid for things it didn't deliver, then I think
that is extortion. Microsoft want te be paid a license on windows for
P.C.'s that were sold without windows.


I think you need to look up "extortion" in a dictionary. I can
walk up to you and say "if you want me to mow your lawn, you must
pay me $1 every time you smoke a cigarette". So long as you can say
"no" and all that happens is that I don't mow your lawn (which I
have no obligation to do anyway), it isn't extortion.


Extortion isn't the right word, of course. Nevertheless, being unable
to pay for a computer without also having to pay for an operating
system I don't want seems wrong to me.

Yes, I have alternatives, I generally buy components and put them
together myself. But why should I have to do that simply to avoid
paying for an OS I'm not going to use?

The way this seems to work in practice strikes me as questionable at
best. Perhaps not illegal (IANAL so I don't know that) but certainly
one-sided. For one example, see

http://www.netcraft.com.au/geoffrey/toshiba.html

joe
--
Gort, klatu barada nikto
Oct 24 '05 #304

<jo*@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:m3************@invalid.address...
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
I think you need to look up "extortion" in a dictionary. I can
walk up to you and say "if you want me to mow your lawn, you must
pay me $1 every time you smoke a cigarette". So long as you can say
"no" and all that happens is that I don't mow your lawn (which I
have no obligation to do anyway), it isn't extortion.

Extortion isn't the right word, of course. Nevertheless, being unable
to pay for a computer without also having to pay for an operating
system I don't want seems wrong to me.
Then don't do it.
Yes, I have alternatives, I generally buy components and put them
together myself. But why should I have to do that simply to avoid
paying for an OS I'm not going to use?
When you are not in the majority, you are going to face inconveniences.
You'd face the same inconvenience if you wanted to buy a new car without
seats. Most people wants cars with seats, so that's the way they're
packaged.
The way this seems to work in practice strikes me as questionable at
best. Perhaps not illegal (IANAL so I don't know that) but certainly
one-sided. For one example, see

http://www.netcraft.com.au/geoffrey/toshiba.html


This, I think, is unacceptable.

DS
Oct 24 '05 #305
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:59:33 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
I think you need to look up "extortion" in a dictionary.


In the days prior to Win95, Microsoft said "Co-operate with us is this
immoral scheme to screw OS/2 or go out of business. Your choice."

I call that extortion, even if their lawyers were careful enough to
skirt the letter of the law.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 25 '05 #306
da****@webmaster.com wrote...
Also may I remind you that these newsgroups are international.


So what? We are talking about a United States' company's actions with
respect to United States laws. There is no reason to make this about
philosophy, politics, law, international relations or any such things. If we
did that, we would wind up on tangents (just like this one!) that have
nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft.

Yes, in a discussion about Microsoft, I will make economic or political
statements that aren't 100% valid in every possible imaginable case. But
guess what? They'll be 100% valid for the case we're discussing.

And you can watch all the replies about how my statement isn't true in
every possible case. Well, guess what? I only care about one case.


But I was told recently that the broader discussion is exactly was
Usenet if for. ;)

Oct 25 '05 #307

"Roedy Green" <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote in
message news:5l********************************@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:59:33 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
I think you need to look up "extortion" in a dictionary.

In the days prior to Win95, Microsoft said "Co-operate with us is this
immoral scheme to screw OS/2 or go out of business. Your choice." I call that extortion, even if their lawyers were careful enough to
skirt the letter of the law.


Do you think it would be immoral if Microsoft said, "we will only sell
Windows wholesale to dealers who don't sell other operating systems?"

DS
Oct 25 '05 #308
Op 2005-10-24, David Schwartz schreef <da****@webmaster.com>:

"Antoon Pardon" <ap*****@forel.vub.ac.be> wrote in message
news:sl********************@rcpc42.vub.ac.be...
Microsoft had something you need so badly that you could not go into
business without it. So they demanded from you that you pay them what
their
software was actually worth to you. That is not extortion. Everyone who
sells something tries to get the maximum possible value for it.

If a company wants to be paid for things it didn't deliver, then I think
that is extortion. Microsoft want te be paid a license on windows for
P.C.'s that were sold without windows.


I think you need to look up "extortion" in a dictionary. I can walk up
to you and say "if you want me to mow your lawn, you must pay me $1 every
time you smoke a cigarette". So long as you can say "no" and all that
happens is that I don't mow your lawn (which I have no obligation to do
anyway), it isn't extortion.


If you would happen to have a monopoly on the mowing business, which
would make it very hard for me to have my lawn mowed unless I took
your offer, it would be.

--
Antoon Pardon
Oct 25 '05 #309

"Antoon Pardon" <ap*****@forel.vub.ac.be> wrote in message
news:sl********************@rcpc42.vub.ac.be...
I think you need to look up "extortion" in a dictionary. I can walk
up
to you and say "if you want me to mow your lawn, you must pay me $1 every
time you smoke a cigarette". So long as you can say "no" and all that
happens is that I don't mow your lawn (which I have no obligation to do
anyway), it isn't extortion.
If you would happen to have a monopoly on the mowing business, which
would make it very hard for me to have my lawn mowed unless I took
your offer, it would be.


Yes, but that's the "if". I have a monopoly on *me* mowing your lawn.
You can, of course, go to someone else to have your lawn mowed. Microsoft
only had a monopoly on *Microsoft* operating systems. Microsoft had no
control over OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, and so on.

Essentially, Microsoft asked for exclusive arrangements. That is,
arrangements wherein you could not sell competing products if you wished to
sell Microsoft products. That's not even remotely unusual.

DS
Oct 25 '05 #310
In comp.os.linux.misc Antoon Pardon <ap*****@forel.vub.ac.be> wrote:
I think you need to look up "extortion" in a dictionary. I can walk up
to you and say "if you want me to mow your lawn, you must pay me $1 every
time you smoke a cigarette". So long as you can say "no" and all that
happens is that I don't mow your lawn (which I have no obligation to do
anyway), it isn't extortion.
If you would happen to have a monopoly on the mowing business, which
would make it very hard for me to have my lawn mowed unless I took
your offer, it would be.


In this case the extortion is over smoking a cigarette (it doesn't seem
to me to necessitate a monopoly on mowing for the threat to have been
deemed to have been made, but perhaps for it to be deemed likely for you
to believe it to have teeth) - money is being demanded with menaces for
your continued smoking of cigarettes. The threatened menace is that
your lawn will find itself not mown.

I can certainly also envisage circumstances in which that threat would
be very real by virtue of an effective monpoloy in the garden market.

Peter
Oct 25 '05 #311
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
Yes, but that's the "if". I have a monopoly on *me* mowing your lawn.
You can, of course, go to someone else to have your lawn mowed.
Of course you can't - why would anyone else be available to mow my lawn
just because I want it to be so? Mowing a lawn requires a lifetime's
investment of skill acquirement, plus a small army of lawn mower
backup fronds advancement teams sitting in cold offices setting up the
lawnmower oil. And while I was searching for somebody else to do the
work my lawn business would be losing money like a sieve.

Microsoft
only had a monopoly on *Microsoft* operating systems. Microsoft had no
Nonsense. Microsoft had an effective monopoly on *IBM PC* operating
systems, thanks to nasty illegal competition-killing tactics that in
themselves were illegal (such as making their programs not work with
ther versions of dos).
control over OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, and so on.
They had plenty of control, thanks to their monopoly position (and
Linux didn't exist then, FreeBSD came soon but was not a client
offering).
Essentially, Microsoft asked for exclusive arrangements. That is,
arrangements wherein you could not sell competing products if you wished to
sell Microsoft products. That's not even remotely unusual.


It soitenly is, stanley. In case you hadn't noticed, the shops sell
more than one kind of washing powder.

Please stop this shillism.

Peter
Oct 25 '05 #312

"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:2n************@news.it.uc3m.es...
Essentially, Microsoft asked for exclusive arrangements. That is,
arrangements wherein you could not sell competing products if you wished
to
sell Microsoft products. That's not even remotely unusual.
It soitenly is, stanley. In case you hadn't noticed, the shops sell
more than one kind of washing powder.
Your argument is nonsensical. Because you can find one category of goods
that don't have the property I'm talking about it follows that the property
is unusual?!

Operating systems are not like washing powder at all. Try to sell both
Big Macs and Whoppers in one store. Heck, try to sell Craftsman tools
without being a Sears. Microsoft gets to decide whether they sell their
operating systems software like washing powder or like burgers, not you.
Please stop this shillism.


If you could produce a strong argument, it might make sense to accuse me
of shilling.

DS
Oct 25 '05 #313
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:2n************@news.it.uc3m.es...
[DS, MS shill, said ..]
Essentially, Microsoft asked for exclusive arrangements. That is,
arrangements wherein you could not sell competing products if you wished
to
sell Microsoft products. That's not even remotely unusual.
It soitenly is, stanley. In case you hadn't noticed, the shops sell
more than one kind of washing powder.
Your argument is nonsensical. Because you can find one category of goods
that don't have the property I'm talking about it follows that the property
is unusual?!
Yep. You got it.
Operating systems are not like washing powder at all.
Really? In what way? I think you'll find that in germany at least,
Linux *IS* a brand of washing powder.
Try to sell both
Big Macs and Whoppers in one store.
Looks good to me - buy my hamburgers in a shop that sells lots of
different kinds in their freezer. I THINK you are trying to confuse
hamburgers and restaurant chains, BTW. Uh, uh. Won't woik, stan. I
know the difference.
Heck, try to sell Craftsman tools
without being a Sears.
No idea what they are, but I imagine they are something you tie round
an ample midriff. Anyway, your example is the wrong way round - you
mean "try to buy a lawn mower from Sears without paying for the price
of a set of Craftsman tools". Or shumeshing.

Microsoft gets to decide whether they sell their
operating systems software like washing powder or like burgers, not you.
Uh uh. No they don't. Discriminatory trading practices are, uh,
illegal. You can't refuse to sell me something (or ratch up the price)
just because you don't like me, or even worse, because you want to
create a articial supply and demand situation. That's called "fixing
the market".
Please stop this shillism.

If you could produce a strong argument, it might make sense to accuse me
of shilling.


I don't have to - shilling is as as shilling looks. If YOU want to
find out what MS did wrong, read the official and legal reports, dude.
The findings are findings of fact.

Peter
Oct 25 '05 #314
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:06:36 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
Do you think it would be immoral if Microsoft said, "we will only sell
Windows wholesale to dealers who don't sell other operating systems?"


I had an existing independent business. I was not as though I were an
MS franchise. They imposed this extortion well into my business's
life. My choice was comply or go out of business.

It was not as if I had a choice of sell Hondas or sell Kias if I did
like the franchise deal.

To my way of thinking what MS did was similar to a the only magasine
wholesaler in town telling retailers it had to sell kiddie porn under
the table or pay full retail for all magazines.

I broke my own ethical code rather than go out of business. I will
never forgive MS for putting me in that position.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 25 '05 #315

"Roedy Green" <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote in
message news:g6********************************@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:06:36 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
Do you think it would be immoral if Microsoft said, "we will only sell
Windows wholesale to dealers who don't sell other operating systems?"

I had an existing independent business. I was not as though I were an
MS franchise. They imposed this extortion well into my business's
life. My choice was comply or go out of business. It was not as if I had a choice of sell Hondas or sell Kias if I did
like the franchise deal.
Okay, I give up. As far as I can see it, there are only two realistic
possibilties:

1) There is no other operating system worth selling. In this case, you
are right, you have no choice but to sell the Microsoft OS, but the deal
they're offering you harms you in no way. (Unless you intended to sell PCs
with no OS at all.)

2) There are other realistic competing operating systems. In this case,
you were foolish to agree to Microsoft's deal. You lost out on the realistic
competing markets. That is, unless Windows only really was a better deal, in
which case you were wise to take the deal and have no reason to be upset.
To my way of thinking what MS did was similar to a the only magasine
wholesaler in town telling retailers it had to sell kiddie porn under
the table or pay full retail for all magazines.
Of course you pick an analogy where MS analogically peddles kiddie porn.
I can play the same game, watch this: What MS did was similar to the major
magazine wholesaler in a town telling retailers they must carry gay and
lesbian publications if they want to carry its mainstream magazines.
I broke my own ethical code rather than go out of business. I will
never forgive MS for putting me in that position.


You certainly have a legitimate personal grudge against MS.

DS
Oct 25 '05 #316
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
1) There is no other operating system worth selling. In this case, you
are right, you have no choice but to sell the Microsoft OS, but the deal
they're offering you harms you in no way. (Unless you intended to sell PCs
with no OS at all.) 2) There are other realistic competing operating systems. In this case,
you were foolish to agree to Microsoft's deal. You lost out on the realistic
competing markets. That is, unless Windows only really was a better deal, in
which case you were wise to take the deal and have no reason to be upset.


3) there are plenty of other OSs that are developed or could be
developed but which cannot get a foothold or even manage to be put on
the shelves because the majority product producer insists on charging
hardware manufacturers for every box produced, whether or not it carries
their o/s, and does other nasty things like sabotaging their own
products so they won't work with a clone o/s.

Sorry - that's not legal, fair, just, or good for the market. It means
that anybody with a 51% share of the market automatically gets 100%.

Stop this apologism now.

Peter
Oct 25 '05 #317

"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:ok************@news.it.uc3m.es...
3) there are plenty of other OSs that are developed or could be
developed but which cannot get a foothold or even manage to be put on
the shelves because the majority product producer insists on charging
hardware manufacturers for every box produced, whether or not it carries
their o/s, and does other nasty things like sabotaging their own
products so they won't work with a clone o/s.
How could he resell an OS that "could be developed"? If nobody wants
these operating systems, then it doesn't hurt him not to be able to sell
them. If people want them, then he could have shown Microsoft the door.

You are responding to an argument that was specifically about the effect
of this particular arrangement on this particular business. This third case
was not one that he could find himself in. In fact, it's case 1 for him.
Sorry - that's not legal, fair, just, or good for the market. It means
that anybody with a 51% share of the market automatically gets 100%.
That's just absolutely absurd. If some OS had 51% of the market, plenty
of other distributors and manufacturers would gladly take other 49%.
Stop this apologism now.


"Apologism"?

Merriam-Webster says: "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary.
Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to
the right."

Dictionary.com says: "No entry found for apologism."

Fortunately I finally found what you mean, from
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc.../apologism.htm which says:

Apologism is the metaphysical philosophy that argues that it is wrong for
humans to attempt to alter the conditions of life in the mortal sphere of
influence. It is opposed to the idea that absolute "progress" is a desirable
goal for the pursuit of human endeavors.

I'm not sure how I've said it's wrong for people to try to alter the
conditions of life. I strongly believe that progress is a desirable goal. In
fact, thanks to you, I now know that I am a meliorist. Never knew there was
a word for it and never knew there were people who weren't.

But then I found what I think you meant, "Apologetics is the field of
study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Someone who
engages in apologetics is called an apologist." So perhaps you are asking me
to stop systematically defending my position. Don't worry, my defense is not
and has not been systematic.

DS
Oct 25 '05 #318
David Schwartz wrote:
"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:ok************@news.it.uc3m.es...

3) there are plenty of other OSs that are developed or could be
developed but which cannot get a foothold or even manage to be put on
the shelves because the majority product producer insists on charging
hardware manufacturers for every box produced, whether or not it carries
their o/s, and does other nasty things like sabotaging their own
products so they won't work with a clone o/s.

How could he resell an OS that "could be developed"? If nobody wants
these operating systems, then it doesn't hurt him not to be able to sell
them. If people want them, then he could have shown Microsoft the door.

Shouldn't it be my right as a seller, to decide that I want to sell an
operating system 'that nobody wants' _as well as_ operating systems that
'everybody wants'? So it *hurts* me if I am not able to sell these. That
it doesn't hurt me financially doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt me
(e.g. my freedom, ideas of morality, whatever).

[big snip]

EP
Oct 25 '05 #319
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 04:21:45 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
2) There are other realistic competing operating systems. In this case,
you were foolish to agree to Microsoft's deal. You lost out on the realistic
competing markets. That is, unless Windows only really was a better deal, in
which case you were wise to take the deal and have no reason to be upset.


The actuality at the time was the vast majority of my business was
Windows. People would ask about OS/2 and when they asked around town
and discovered because of the MS dirty deal it cost way more, they
lost interest.

I could not have made a living selling only OS/2. It is was a very
difficult business to survive in as it was and I was already at a
disadvantage because of my insistence on not cutting corners the way
my competitors did. Every once in a while I run into one of my
machines I built back in the early 90s still going without a hitch
over a decade later.

I don't think I could make it clearer. What MS did was wrong and I
will to my dying day curse them for it. If I were a Christian, I
would put it this way. The pressured me into selling my soul.

They did not tempt me into it. They threatened to destroy my business
and my livelihood if I did not knuckle under. That is extortion.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 25 '05 #320

"Eike Preuss" <ma**@eikepreuss.de> wrote in message
news:3s************@individual.net...
Shouldn't it be my right as a seller, to decide that I want to sell an
operating system 'that nobody wants' _as well as_ operating systems that
'everybody wants'?
Yes, it certainly is. However, it is also Microsoft's right as a seller
to refuse discounts to those who also sell competing products. You may not
particularly what operating systems your customers use, but Microsoft does.
So it *hurts* me if I am not able to sell these. That
it doesn't hurt me financially doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt me
(e.g. my freedom, ideas of morality, whatever).


You may want to start a restaurant that sells both Big Macs and
Whoppers. But I don't think you'll get either McDonald's or Burger King to
let you. Perhaps this hurts your freedom, your ideas of morality, or
whatever, but the reality is that these companys don't want you selling both
their products and competing products.

It is McDonald's position that a Big Mac is superior to a Whopper and
there is no reason to pick a Whopper over a Big Mac. To them, a store that
sells both makes no sense.

Microsoft's corporate view at the time was that an x86 desktop without
Windows was a brick. And if you want to sell bricks, they don't want their
customers dealing with you.

When you sell a product, you also mention that product in your
advertising. When you sell competing products, you take some customers who
want the product you advertised. That is why a lot of products are only sold
through exclusive dealerships.

Microsoft, like any other company, has the right to set the conditions
under which its product is sold. Prohibiting the distrubution of competing
products is not really all that unusal, and the agreement Microsoft actually
insisted on was much less restrictive than that.

Is it fair to Microsoft if the big "Windows" sign on your store and in
your advertising brings in customers looking for Windows and you then sell
them OS2?

DS
Oct 25 '05 #321
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message news:ok************@news.it.uc3m.es...
3) there are plenty of other OSs that are developed or could be
developed but which cannot get a foothold or even manage to be put on
the shelves because the majority product producer insists on charging
hardware manufacturers for every box produced, whether or not it carries
their o/s, and does other nasty things like sabotaging their own
products so they won't work with a clone o/s.

How could he resell an OS that "could be developed"?
Is it relevant? Why? Can you sell a voip solution that could be
developed? Is that relevant? No. No. No. No.
If nobody wants
these operating systems,
False premise, indeed, irrelevant premise, therefore rest of statememt
junked. No dumb client cares what o/s they are running. Do you care if
your mobile phone runs symbios of javalite? That's simply not the point
- the point is that the makers of symbios don't charge your mobile phone
manufacturer for every phone sold, whether symbios is on there or
not. Doing so is "restraint of trade", because, uh, it restrains the
manufactrers of mobile phones from exercising their market choices.

then it doesn't hurt him not to be able to sell


Who cares? It's to the advantage of sellers to create a monopoly! It's
not in YOUR, the customer's, advantage to have one, which is why there
are laws against it!

Go away!

Peter
Oct 25 '05 #322
da****@webmaster.com wrote...
1) There is no other operating system worth selling. In this case, you
are right, you have no choice but to sell the Microsoft OS, but the deal
they're offering you harms you in no way. (Unless you intended to sell PCs
with no OS at all.)

2) There are other realistic competing operating systems. In this case,
you were foolish to agree to Microsoft's deal. You lost out on the realistic
competing markets. That is, unless Windows only really was a better deal, in
which case you were wise to take the deal and have no reason to be upset.


The flaw with this is that business owners don't get to decide what
the market wants. And the market wanted the Microsoft OS. Every
other OS in the market had bit player status, via the economic
principle called increasing returns.

You either sell what the market wants, or you go out of business.

Oct 25 '05 #323
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
"Eike Preuss" <ma**@eikepreuss.de> wrote in message
news:3s************@individual.net...
Shouldn't it be my right as a seller, to decide that I want to sell an
operating system 'that nobody wants' _as well as_ operating systems that
'everybody wants'?

Yes, it certainly is. However, it is also Microsoft's right as a seller
to refuse discounts to those who also sell competing products. You may not


No it is not their "right"! That would be a discriminatory practice,
not to mention an anti-competitive practice. Totally.

Peter
Oct 25 '05 #324
joe
Not Bill Gates <nb*@nbg.invalid> writes:
da****@webmaster.com wrote...
1) There is no other operating system worth selling. In this
case, you are right, you have no choice but to sell the Microsoft
OS, but the deal they're offering you harms you in no way. (Unless
you intended to sell PCs with no OS at all.)

2) There are other realistic competing operating systems. In
this case, you were foolish to agree to Microsoft's deal. You lost
out on the realistic competing markets. That is, unless Windows
only really was a better deal, in which case you were wise to take
the deal and have no reason to be upset.


The flaw with this is that business owners don't get to decide what
the market wants. And the market wanted the Microsoft OS. Every
other OS in the market had bit player status, via the economic
principle called increasing returns.

You either sell what the market wants, or you go out of business.


I'm hesitant to get into this, but I keep wondering why, if there is
no other competing OS, or not one worth worrying about, the MS
business agreements are so draconian? Why would a company come up with
such heavy handed agreements if it wasn't worried about competition?

Yes, I know, they can do whatever they want, it's not a crime,
etc. However when they use their market position to disallow
competition, it sounds to me like they're worried about something, and
trying to squelch it.

Joe
--
Gort, klatu barada nikto
Oct 25 '05 #325
David Schwartz wrote:

If nobody wants
these operating systems, then it doesn't hurt him not to be able to sell
them. If people want them, then he could have shown Microsoft the door.


If only 5% want another operating system, the vendor has to choose
between selling to those 5% -or- to the 95% who want Microsoft. Had it
not been for the underhanded tactics, he could have sold to *both* groups.

From a purely economic standpoint, the sensible thing is to accept that
95% and let the 5% go elsewhere.

But if *every* vendor has to make that same choice, there is no place
for that other 5% to go to buy another operating system. So the other
operating system(s) die off. And those 5% become customers of Microsoft
since there's no other choice left. And *that* is where the legal
problems start: they gained market share by preventing consumers from
finding competing products.
Oct 25 '05 #326
jo*@invalid.address wrote...
Not Bill Gates <nb*@nbg.invalid> writes:
da****@webmaster.com wrote...
1) There is no other operating system worth selling. In this
case, you are right, you have no choice but to sell the Microsoft
OS, but the deal they're offering you harms you in no way. (Unless
you intended to sell PCs with no OS at all.)

2) There are other realistic competing operating systems. In
this case, you were foolish to agree to Microsoft's deal. You lost
out on the realistic competing markets. That is, unless Windows
only really was a better deal, in which case you were wise to take
the deal and have no reason to be upset.
The flaw with this is that business owners don't get to decide what
the market wants. And the market wanted the Microsoft OS. Every
other OS in the market had bit player status, via the economic
principle called increasing returns.

You either sell what the market wants, or you go out of business.


I'm hesitant to get into this, but I keep wondering why, if there is
no other competing OS, or not one worth worrying about, the MS
business agreements are so draconian? Why would a company come up with
such heavy handed agreements if it wasn't worried about competition?


For the same reason that people put down bug spray, I guess: You
don't want any bugs showing up later and ruining your dinner party.
Yes, I know, they can do whatever they want, it's not a crime,
etc. However when they use their market position to disallow
competition, it sounds to me like they're worried about something, and
trying to squelch it.


Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much.

Maybe they were trying to protect themselves against all the market
momentum they'd created around 0S/2. They'd been big fans of it
right up until Windows 3.0 took off.
Oct 25 '05 #327
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:22:53 +0000, Not Bill Gates wrote:
The flaw with this is that business owners don't get to decide what
the market wants. And the market wanted the Microsoft OS. Every
other OS in the market had bit player status, via the economic
principle called increasing returns.

You either sell what the market wants, or you go out of business.


That is not true. The market was quite happy to buy competing products
such as DR DOS. What the market was not happy to do was buy DR DOS, but
pay for *both* DR DOS and MS DOS even though they only received DR DOS.

And that, in a nutshell, is why Microsoft's actions were illegal. They
were stealing from computer buyers: if you wished to buy an IBM-compatible
PC, you had to pay for MS DOS even if you didn't want it, and having paid
for it, there was no guarantee that you would receive it.

Most users didn't know that they were paying for MS DOS -- all they knew
was that MS DOS either came bundled with the PC automatically, or that if
they requested some other operating system, they ended up paying more
rather than less -- even when that other OS was cheaper than MS DOS.

Imagine that your corner store charged $1 for a Coke, $0.90 for a Pepsi,
and $5 for burger and Coke. If you asked for a burger on its own, the
price would still be $5. If you asked them for a burger and Pepsi, the
price would go up to $5.90 -- and the Coca-Cola company would still get
their dollar for the Coke you didn't get, plus another dollar for the same
Coke when the next customer bought it.

If only one or two stores did this, then the market would correct
itself: people who wanted Pepsi, or a burger without Coke, would go
elsewhere, and save a dollar.

But in the case of Microsoft, there was no practical "elsewhere" to go to.
All the resellers did the same thing. Virtually the only alternative,
buying an Apple Macintosh, was more or less the equivalent of driving to
the next state to buy a $10 steak when what you wanted was a $5 burger.

The situation was, pay Microsoft for MS DOS or go without a PC. Since
users were either unaware of the situation, or unable to change it, they
did the rational thing: why pay for a Coke and then pay again for a Pepsi
if you just want any old drink? A few die-hard DR DOS supporters paid
double for the product they wanted, and helped enrich Microsoft. The rest
simply took the path of least resistance: if you're going to pay for a
Coke no matter what, you might as well drink it.

The thing with markets is that they only lead to efficient outcomes when
there is sufficient competition. That's why anti-competitive behaviour is
a bad thing, and is illegal in just about every country in the world.
(Whether the laws are enforced is another story.) A few people, blinded by
ideology, deny the evidence of their own experiences by insisting that
monopolies do no harm.

See, for instance, the contrasting situation in hardware and software.

As compilers and other tools have evolved, it has become easier to develop
software. Distributing it has also become easier: in 1985, Word came
on five or six floppies worth perhaps a dollar each, with two or three
kilograms of paper manuals. Today, you get a single CD worth maybe twenty
five cents. In the case of Windows, often all you will get is a licence
number, not even the media. The cost of distributing Windows is
essentially zero. And yet over that same twenty year period, the cost of
the operating system has more or less doubled in price.

Hardware, on the other hand, has fallen in price by perhaps 90%, while
simultaneously becoming far more capable. The PC I bought in 1986 for
$4000 probably had less computing power than the DVD drive I paid $40 for
this year.

There is one desktop operating system vendor with monopoly power. There
are hundreds of hardware vendors competing on price and features. Only
those blinded by ideology fail to see the connection.

--
Steven.

Oct 25 '05 #328
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:56:28 -0500, joe wrote:
Yes, I know, they can do whatever they want, it's not a crime,
etc. However when they use their market position to disallow
competition, it sounds to me like they're worried about something, and
trying to squelch it.


But that's the whole point: they *can't* do whatever they want, and
certain behaviours *are* crimes. Just because Microsoft executives wear
business suits instead of torn jeans or dirty sweatshirts doesn't make
them beyond the law.
--
Steven.

Oct 25 '05 #329
joe
Steven D'Aprano <st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> writes:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:56:28 -0500, joe wrote:
Yes, I know, they can do whatever they want, it's not a crime,
etc. However when they use their market position to disallow
competition, it sounds to me like they're worried about something,
and trying to squelch it.
But that's the whole point: they *can't* do whatever they want,


They've been pretty much doing just that for a long time. The "it's
not a crime etc" part was to deflect parenthetical arguments that
confuse the issue. In other words, I was recognizing that a lot of
people don't think what MS does is a crime, and until MS gets
convicted of a crime, it's a matter of opinion. I was trying to say
something else.
and certain behaviours *are* crimes. Just because Microsoft
executives wear business suits instead of torn jeans or dirty
sweatshirts doesn't make them beyond the law.


Maybe, but good lawyers might :-)

Joe
--
Gort, klatu barada nikto
Oct 25 '05 #330
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:35:47 +0000, Not Bill Gates wrote:
Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much.
You don't care that innovation in desktop software has been crippled by
the actions of the monopoly player Microsoft?

In 1988, there were something like ten or a dozen word processors
available to choose from, and they were competing on price and features
like crazy. That was then, now there is just MS Office. The most
innovative things Microsoft has added to Office in the last decade? Clippy
the paperclip. An XML wrapper to their binary file format. And the
incredible disappearing and reappearing menus.

You don't care that the cost of OS and office software has risen, rather
than fallen, because of the monopoly power of Microsoft?

You don't care that because of Microsoft's neglect, there are millions of
zombie PCs running their sub-standard OS across the world, sending
hundreds of millions of spam emails? I can tell you, even if you are lucky
enough to not be receiving spams, you are still paying for it in higher
ISP costs, because *they* certainly are receiving those spams and trying
to block them.

It must be nice to be so free of cares...

Maybe they were trying to protect themselves against all the market
momentum they'd created around 0S/2. They'd been big fans of it
right up until Windows 3.0 took off.


That would be a good guess, except that Microsoft's predatory and illegal
behaviour began long before OS/2 was even planned. It began in the mid
1970s, with MS DOS.

--
Steven.

Oct 25 '05 #331
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:00:58 -0500, joe wrote:
In other words, I was recognizing that a lot of
people don't think what MS does is a crime, and until MS gets
convicted of a crime, it's a matter of opinion. I was trying to say
something else.

And again, they HAVE been convicted of crimes, plural, and not just in one
court, but in multiple, in the US, Japan, Europe, and in civil suits in
front of juries.

Apologists for Microsoft like David Schwartz seem to be taking a
three-prong argument:

"They haven't done the things you say, and even if they have, they aren't
illegal, and even if they are illegal, they shouldn't be."

The first two points are factually wrong, and the third is an opinion
based on the concept, as far as I can see, that Microsoft should be
allowed to do anything they like, even if those actions harm others.

--
Steven.

Oct 25 '05 #332
Steven D'Aprano <st***@removethiscyber.com.au> wrote:
That would be a good guess, except that Microsoft's predatory and illegal
behaviour began long before OS/2 was even planned. It began in the mid
1970s, with MS DOS.


Nitpick: MS-DOS first appeared in 1981.

--
John Wingate Mathematics is the art which teaches
jo****@worldpath.net one how not to make calculations.
--Oscar Chisini
Oct 25 '05 #333
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:54:13 +0000, John Wingate wrote:
Steven D'Aprano <st***@removethiscyber.com.au> wrote:
That would be a good guess, except that Microsoft's predatory and illegal
behaviour began long before OS/2 was even planned. It began in the mid
1970s, with MS DOS.


Nitpick: MS-DOS first appeared in 1981.


[slaps head]

Of course it did.
--
Steven.

Oct 25 '05 #334
st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au wrote...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:54:13 +0000, John Wingate wrote:
Steven D'Aprano <st***@removethiscyber.com.au> wrote:
That would be a good guess, except that Microsoft's predatory and illegal
behaviour began long before OS/2 was even planned. It began in the mid
1970s, with MS DOS.


Nitpick: MS-DOS first appeared in 1981.


[slaps head]

Of course it did.


The first thing I ever bought of Microsoft's, in 1982 or so, was a
CP/M board for my Apple IIe.

CP/M, whose programmers to this day defend sticking with 8-bit CPUs
because 'they can't find a 4-bit chip they like'. Yeah, there's some
desktop innovation for you.

OS/2 1.0 was released in 1987, but the "selling" of it started in
1985 or so by IBM and Microsoft. It was a 286 OS.

IBM seems to have had a history of squeezing out competition in the
same way Microsoft has, if I recall correctly.

Oct 25 '05 #335
st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au wrote...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:35:47 +0000, Not Bill Gates wrote:
Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much.


You don't care that innovation in desktop software has been crippled by
the actions of the monopoly player Microsoft?


You need to first prove innovation in desktop software has been
crippled, don't you?

Oct 25 '05 #336
Not Bill Gates wrote:
st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au wrote...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:35:47 +0000, Not Bill Gates wrote:
Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much.

You don't care that innovation in desktop software has been crippled by
the actions of the monopoly player Microsoft?


You need to first prove innovation in desktop software has been
crippled, don't you?


How about their "java" implementation between 1998 and 2004?
Sure killed the _easier_ write once run everywhere mantra, of course
they where not alone in the killing, SUN helped a great deal.

--
mph
Oct 25 '05 #337

"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:lg************@news.it.uc3m.es...
Yes, it certainly is. However, it is also Microsoft's right as a
seller
to refuse discounts to those who also sell competing products. You may
not
No it is not their "right"! That would be a discriminatory practice,
not to mention an anti-competitive practice. Totally.


Businesses have the right to be discriminatory and anti-competitive in
this way. McDonald's won't sell a Burger King their burger patties. This is
both discriminatory and anti-competitive, but also perfectly legal, moral,
and proper.

You only run into a problem under United States law if the company is a
monopoly. And I've already addressed that issue in this thread.

DS
Oct 25 '05 #338

<jo*@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:m3************@invalid.address...
I'm hesitant to get into this, but I keep wondering why, if there is
no other competing OS, or not one worth worrying about, the MS
business agreements are so draconian? Why would a company come up with
such heavy handed agreements if it wasn't worried about competition?

Yes, I know, they can do whatever they want, it's not a crime,
etc. However when they use their market position to disallow
competition, it sounds to me like they're worried about something, and
trying to squelch it.


If they have a choice, should their competitors have 1% of the market or
0%, they'll choose zero. Who wouldn't? What they're worried about is a
customer going to a store because they advertise that they have Windows and
being switched to another OS.

In fact, they weren't draconian. A draconian agreement would have been
one that prohibited you from selling any other OS if you want to sell
Microsoft OSes. Instead, what they did was much less restrictive in that it
only affected discount levels rather than right to resell and only increased
the cost of selling other operating systems rather than prohibiting them.
Many other companies totally prohibit you from selling competing products if
you want to get the wholesale price on their products.

DS
Oct 25 '05 #339

"John-Paul Stewart" <jp*******@binaryfoundry.ca> wrote in message
news:pj************@mail.binaryfoundry.ca...
David Schwartz wrote:

If nobody wants these operating systems, then it doesn't hurt him not to
be able to sell them. If people want them, then he could have shown
Microsoft the door.


If only 5% want another operating system, the vendor has to choose between
selling to those 5% -or- to the 95% who want Microsoft. Had it not been
for the underhanded tactics, he could have sold to *both* groups.

From a purely economic standpoint, the sensible thing is to accept that
95% and let the 5% go elsewhere.

But if *every* vendor has to make that same choice, there is no place for
that other 5% to go to buy another operating system. So the other
operating system(s) die off. And those 5% become customers of Microsoft
since there's no other choice left. And *that* is where the legal
problems start: they gained market share by preventing consumers from
finding competing products.


Right, except that's utterly absurd. If every vendor takes their tiny
cut of the 95%, a huge cut of the 5% is starting to look *REALLY* good.

DS
Oct 25 '05 #340

"Steven D'Aprano" <st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@REMOVETHIScybe r.com.au...
The first two points are factually wrong, and the third is an opinion
based on the concept, as far as I can see, that Microsoft should be
allowed to do anything they like, even if those actions harm others.


Of course this alleged "harm" is simply a lack of a benefit.

Why is Burger King allowed to close at 10PM? That harms me when I'm
hungry after 10.

DS
Oct 25 '05 #341

"Martin P. Hellwig" <mh******@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:43***********************@news.xs4all.nl...
Not Bill Gates wrote:
st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au wrote...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:35:47 +0000, Not Bill Gates wrote:

Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much.
You don't care that innovation in desktop software has been crippled by
the actions of the monopoly player Microsoft?
You need to first prove innovation in desktop software has been crippled,
don't you?

How about their "java" implementation between 1998 and 2004?
Sure killed the _easier_ write once run everywhere mantra, of course they
where not alone in the killing, SUN helped a great deal.


It's easy to point to things you think are mistakes and claim that if
you had been in charge of the world, those mistakes would not have been
made. If you are trying to balance completely different possible paths the
universe might have taken, you need to make sure to include everything on
both sides, and that's really really hard to do.

Perhaps the desktop software is good enough that how much better it
would have been wouldn't make much difference. And perhaps the lack of
competition steered the innovators into other fields where their innovations
made huge differences. Perhaps not -- perhaps the desktop software we would
have had in a more competitive market would have made other people's lives
majorly better. Who knows?

I don't think it's possible or sensible to try to have a reckoning of
this type. There are so many variables and unpredictable possibilities.

DS
Oct 25 '05 #342
David Schwartz wrote:

Do you think it would be immoral if Microsoft said, "we will only sell
Windows wholesale to dealers who don't sell other operating systems?"

That's the crux of the problem, isn't it? When you are a virtual
monopoly, it is at least unlawful. The Sherman Anti-trust act as well
as the various follow-on anti-trust laws essentially say that what is
okay when you have 49% of a market is illegal when you have 51%. You
have maintained that Microsoft is not a monopoly, but they clearly
are by U.S. Anti-trust law. Congress has set the definition, and
the courts have upheld it, explicitly in Microsoft's case. The courts
have declared Microsoft a monopoly in the desktop OS market, and that
decision stands.

You have said that it was unreasonable to expect Microsoft to define
the market in the manner required to make them into a monopoly, but
it was their primary market. Again, court records show that they not
only had a monopoly, they knew they had a monopoly and took steps
to preserve their monopoly. Some of those steps were illegal by U.S.
law.

Also, you have said that it was unreasonable to expect Microsoft to
know that they were in violation of the law. In addition to the fact
that the laws have been in place since the late 1800's, the consent
decree explicitly and in no uncertain terms informed them of their
violations, and they continued to violate the law even afterward.

I have read some interesting things written by some of the principles
involved that the culture in Microsoft explicitly resisted against
checking the legality of these matters, not because they wanted to
do illegal things, but because Bill Gates viewed the legal vetting
process that he saw IBM use as being the primary cause of the
inability of IBM to react to the changing market. He didn't want
his company to have the same legal baggage. Microsoft resisted
having any kind of "working within the law" type of employee
training until long after most other large companies had them.

--
blu

Remember when SOX compliant meant they were both the same color?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Utterback - OP/N1 RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom
Oct 25 '05 #343
David Schwartz wrote:
<cut>
It's easy to point to things you think are mistakes and claim that if
you had been in charge of the world, those mistakes would not have been
made. If you are trying to balance completely different possible paths the
universe might have taken, you need to make sure to include everything on
both sides, and that's really really hard to do.

Perhaps the desktop software is good enough that how much better it
would have been wouldn't make much difference. And perhaps the lack of
competition steered the innovators into other fields where their innovations
made huge differences. Perhaps not -- perhaps the desktop software we would
have had in a more competitive market would have made other people's lives
majorly better. Who knows?

I don't think it's possible or sensible to try to have a reckoning of
this type. There are so many variables and unpredictable possibilities.

DS


I agree that it is hard, nearly impossible, to make the _one_ best
decision in a situation.
However it is quit possible to not make the very obvious wrong decision.

Just that it is very hard to hit a specific tree with a small handgun
from a 2 mile distant, that is nearly impossible.
However, just avoiding your feet should be doable.

BTW, I think you are management material...

--
mph

Oct 25 '05 #344
In <43**************@sun.removeme.com> Brian Utterback:

[Snip...]
that the laws have been in place since the late 1800's, the consent
decree explicitly and in no uncertain terms informed them of their
violations, and they continued to violate the law even afterward.


It's M$ corporate DNA; they literally couldn't change and survive:

Howard University law professor Andrew Gavil said he wonders whether
Microsoft's early demands -- which would have compelled manufacturers
to distribute to consumers only Microsoft's Windows Media Player
software -- were a genuine mistake or a signal the company intends to
revert to its hardball tactics.

"It's somewhat amazing it even happened," said Gavil, who has closely
followed the Microsoft case. "It's troubling that anyone inside
Microsoft was still thinking this was a legitimate business strategy."

Well, duh. All they got was a useless wrist-slap from the dickless US DOJ
in 2002, so this is not at all surprising--just bidness as usual for M$.

More:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/051020/micro...rust.html?.v=6

And any M$ apologists are just as much liars and thieves as M$ itself.

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.
Oct 25 '05 #345
Not Bill Gates <nb*@nbg.invalid> writes:
st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au wrote...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:35:47 +0000, Not Bill Gates wrote:
> Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much.

You don't care that innovation in desktop software has been crippled by
the actions of the monopoly player Microsoft?

You need to first prove innovation in desktop software has been
crippled, don't you?


MS took desktop software through pretty much the same sequence of
offerings that the mainframe and minicomputer software industry had
been throgh: flat file systems and single-tasking OS's in a command
line environment, adding nested file systems, adding TSRs, adding a
windowing environment, adding true multitasking and finally
multiprocessor systems. This took them what - 20+ years?

While MS was "innovating" by giving us directories, others who had
learned the lessons from mainframe and minicomputer systems were
offering us desktop systems with all those features - and an office
suite that ran in the windowing systems - for a fraction of the price
of anything that was capable of running MS-DOS.

MS managed to kill off or drive into niche markets the companies who
were actually doing innovative work on desktop systems, and it's taken
the desktop software industry two decades to recover from that. I'll
accept that as crippling until a better definition comes along.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Oct 25 '05 #346
mw*@mired.org wrote...
Not Bill Gates <nb*@nbg.invalid> writes:
st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au wrote...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:35:47 +0000, Not Bill Gates wrote:
> Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much.
You don't care that innovation in desktop software has been crippled by
the actions of the monopoly player Microsoft?

You need to first prove innovation in desktop software has been
crippled, don't you?


MS took desktop software through pretty much the same sequence of
offerings that the mainframe and minicomputer software industry had
been throgh: flat file systems and single-tasking OS's in a command
line environment, adding nested file systems, adding TSRs, adding a
windowing environment, adding true multitasking and finally
multiprocessor systems. This took them what - 20+ years?


<shrug> Being pissed off about how things could have been done
better is a losing proposition. Even so, I'm a LOT more pissed off
that we're still driving around in 25 mpg polluting gas-burners than
I am about not having Windows XP available in 1985.
Oct 25 '05 #347
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:lg************@news.it.uc3m.es...
Yes, it certainly is. However, it is also Microsoft's right as a
seller
to refuse discounts to those who also sell competing products. You may
not
No it is not their "right"! That would be a discriminatory practice,
not to mention an anti-competitive practice. Totally.

Businesses have the right to be discriminatory and anti-competitive in
this way.
No they don't. I'm simply open-jawed at such a statement.
McDonald's won't sell a Burger King their burger patties.
McDonald's are not in the business of wholesale distribution of burger
patties so your statement is simply sited in the wrong universe of
discourse. Coming back to the current universe of discourse, I assure
you that a McDonald's director can go into a Burger King and buy a
burger like anyone else, so no discrimination. Mind you - I'm not sure
if they'd let Ronald in. He's obviously dangerously nutty.
his is
both discriminatory and anti-competitive,
It's neither. It's simply not part of their business.
but also perfectly legal, moral,
and proper.
Dalse assumptions, hence invalid conclusions.
You only run into a problem under United States law if the company is a
monopoly. And I've already addressed that issue in this thread.


If MacDonalds were wholesale suppliers of hamburgers to the
distribution trade, then they couldn't discriminate among their
customers for the purposes of altering the competitive nature of the
market in hamburger sales to you and me across the counter. Companies
have been sued for trying that - sports shoe manufacturers, I seem to
recall. They've tried to make sure their shoes are sold only by
specified outlets at specified prices, in order to artificially manage
the market. That's illegal. Sued they got (or perhaps "suede").
Peter
Oct 25 '05 #348
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
"Steven D'Aprano" <st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@REMOVETHIScybe r.com.au...
The first two points are factually wrong, and the third is an opinion
based on the concept, as far as I can see, that Microsoft should be
allowed to do anything they like, even if those actions harm others.

Of course this alleged "harm" is simply a lack of a benefit. Why is Burger King allowed to close at 10PM? That harms me when I'm
hungry after 10.


They can close when they like because the policy is not discriminatory,
nor is part of an attempt to manage the market. If they were to do
things that harmed the market - such as telling meat suppliers that
supplied them that they couldn't supply anyone else, that would be a
possible candidate for anti-competitive behaviour suits. It would have
to be shown that the arrangement WAS materially anti-competitive,
though, and that's difficult to conceive of because MacDonalds does
not constitute a major portion of the market demand for corned beef,
so they don't have the leverage.

Peter
Oct 25 '05 #349
Not Bill Gates <nb*@nbg.invalid> writes:
mw*@mired.org wrote...
Not Bill Gates <nb*@nbg.invalid> writes:
> st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au wrote...
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:35:47 +0000, Not Bill Gates wrote:
>> > Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much.
>> You don't care that innovation in desktop software has been crippled by
>> the actions of the monopoly player Microsoft?
> You need to first prove innovation in desktop software has been
> crippled, don't you?


MS took desktop software through pretty much the same sequence of
offerings that the mainframe and minicomputer software industry had
been throgh: flat file systems and single-tasking OS's in a command
line environment, adding nested file systems, adding TSRs, adding a
windowing environment, adding true multitasking and finally
multiprocessor systems. This took them what - 20+ years?


<shrug> Being pissed off about how things could have been done
better is a losing proposition.


I'm not pissed off about it - I've got better things to do. You asked
for prove that desktop software development was crippled by MS. I
provided it.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Oct 25 '05 #350

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.