Linux-Advocacy Digest #926, Volume #25 Mon, 3 Apr 00 18:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Re: Rumors ... ("Chad Myers")
it is OUT, MS is GUILTY ! (bob@nospam)
Re: Rumors ... (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Microsoft IS a monopoly (jt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 16:51:08 -0500
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > The fault in your logic is that MSFT doesn't control PC hardware.
>
> That was an analogy. MSFT doesn't have to control the PC hardware to be
> a monopoly . . . however, the PC95 standard suggests that they would
> *LIKE* to control the hardware!
What about the dozens of other vendors (hardware and software) that
participated?
MSFT makes an OS for PCs that a lot of people use, wouldn't you think that
everyone
would like to have their input?
What about 3Com, Intel, AMD, Dell, Compaq, and the dozens of others? Are they
not monopolies as well?
Anyone can join in the spec if you have something useful. Just because MSFT was
there doesn't make them a monopoly. And if you look at the spec, there's
nothing
MSFT specific there, it's basically just getting rid of legacy devices and
moving
everything to new technologies like IEEE1394, USB, etc.
> > MSFT has a monopoly on it's own APIs and OS, true, but that doesn't not make
> > it a monopoly in the OS market.
>
> "Monopoly" takes on a different meaning in the IS world. For the
> purposes of this discussion, having a set of interlocking secrets would
> not be a monopoly, per se, if these secrets had nothing to do with a
> "shared resource", which is exactly what an OS is.
So, MSFT has a monopoly over it's own OS, why shouldn't it? GM has a monopoly
on it's cars?
Do you see Ford engines in GM cars? Or Crysler transmissions in Ford cars?
What about Texaco fuel pumps at Exxon's stations? Of course not.
MSFT should be able to control their OS however they like. If you don't want to
work with them, then don't. There's nothing stopping you from working with any
of the other dozens of OSes or hell, even creating your own. It's not like a
national telephone cable network, it's software. Anyone with a keyboard and
a compiler can make their own. The only barrier to entry is intelligence, which
no one controls or has a monopoly over.
> Since this shared resource is indeed kept safe by keeping secrets, then
> MSFT, plus their control over a significant market, is indeed a
> monopoly.
They have significant market share, but that doesn't make them a monopoly.
You're stretching here, and it's rediculous.
GM has a lion's share of the automobile market (or at least used to) and they
are not a monopoly. They did mean and dirty things, but they're still not a
monopoly, likewise, MS has market dominance, but they're not the only beast in
town.
They have neither a vertical nor a horizontal monopoly. All they control is
their
own OS, and there are plenty of competitors.
> > For example, Exxon has a monopoly on it's
> > own gas pumps, but that doesn't make it a monopoly.
>
> But Exxon isn't pumping out the only gas in the world that will run 90%
> if the cars in existence.
But even if they were, Exxon is not the only person who makes fuel. And,
unlike the gas station business, it's easy for competitors to build more gas
stations.
It's not like in the gas station business where you have finite real estate or
advantageous posisition in relation to highways and such.
With software, it's easy and not terribly costly to produce and there are no
barriers to entry because there's no limit.
If MSFT controlled the hardware, it would be completely different, I agree, but
they
have no control over hardware, they have no control over ISVs and IHVs, they
have no monopoly. All they can do is bully the OEMs, they have, and they should
be
punished for unfair trade practices, but they're hardly a monopoly.
> Other than a few weird little additives that
> may or may not affect your cars longetivity and performance, gasoline is
> gasoline, so if you decide to buy from Shell tommorow, instead of Exxon,
> there is nothing to stop you from doing so.
>
> On the other hand, if I decide to switch from Windows to Solaris
> tommorow, not only do I have to change gasoline vendors I have to, in
> effect, buy a whole new car and drive on a different set of roads.
And this makes MSFT a monopoly how? If you don't like GM cars, you have to buy
Ford cars. Should GM then make all their parts (engines, suspension, exhaust)
comptatible with Ford, so that when you buy a Ford you can just buy the chasis
and body, but you can use all your parts fromt he GM? Of course not.
The only problem with switching to Solaris, or Linux, or other OSes is that
there is not good application support, because these companies make it difficult
and backwards for ISVs to develop.
MSFT's biggest advantage is that they make it super easy for developers to
develop
on their platform. The MSDN Library is the most comprehensive and easy to follow
documentation of any OS, and it's free to everyone who wants to look at it.
And it's available over the web!
What is Solaris and other OSes doing for their developers? There's a huge
learning
curve and the development tools are sparse and complicated. MSFT makes it easy
as pie.
If other competitors would give developers an incentive to move over, you would
see larger diversification of ISVs. However, they don't, instead they'd rather
bitch
and moan to mommy (DOJ) about how mean and cruel MSFT is, when in fact, it is
they
who are incompetent in both marketing and support.
> > - There is nothing preventing application vendors from writing software for
> > other platforms.
>
> Nothing, except illegal and monopolistic practices that reduce or
> eliminate the number of those other platforms. You know, things such
> as: licensing restrictions that greatly increase the cost of your
> license if you, as a hardware vendor, choose to preinstall other OS'en
> besides an MS OS on you boxen?
MS did this, and they should be punished. However, there was nothing stopping
the OEMs from dumping MS. They would get greater profits by sticking with
MS, but they wouldn't go under if they invested in one of the dozens of other
platforms and bet on them.
MS was once the underdog and had to compete against big software companies.
Successful marketing, good dealmaking, and savvy contracts helped them get
where they are. Other OS vendors seem completely incompetent at marketing
and providing support for their products. And they seem to not value their
customers like MSFT does. Is this MSFT's fault? Of course not, yet somehow
MSFT must pay for incompetent competition?
> > - There is nothing preventing consumers from buying a different OS, or
buying
> > from an OEM that doesn't preinstall Windows.
>
> Like there is nothing from stopping you from buying a telephone that
> requires different signals and standards than that of those developed by
> ATT . . . other than the simple fact that, once having bought that
> telephone, it would be useless.
However, there are multiple LD carriers that provide that same signal, you
argument
is unclear and irrelevant. You have a choice of LD carriers, you have a choice
of
hardware vendors, OS vendors, and application vendors.
> > The problem with the AT&T analogy, was that AT&T had the only phone cable
> > network.
>
> But by your own reasoning, there was nothing stopping the competition
> from creating their own network, right? So why declare ATT a monopoly?
Yes, there was huge barriers. Building a cable network requires huge contracts
with the government and localities, building a huge nationwide service area,
billions in fiberoptics and routing equipment, etc.
There are huge barriers to entry.
Whereas, with an OS, or any software, a college student can create one in his
dorm room, as evidenced by Linus Torvalds.
There are few barriers to entry with software, and few costs involved. At the
worst, finding a venture capitalist wouldn't be that hard and for a few million
at the MOST you could end up with a competitor to any OS. However, you have
to know what you're doing, and it seems there are few competent OS developers
out there right now.
Is this MS's fault? Why should they be responsible for making sure that there
are plenty of smart kids to develop OSes to compete against them?
> > If MSFT control both the hardware (the phone cabling)
>
> In this case, the "cabling" is the secret protocols used by their
> networking products . . . so MSFT does indeed control the "cabling".
MSFT controls their own cables, but not ALL the cables. Your analogy
is wrong.
> Unless, of course, you are prepared to point me to complete and usable
> documents that describe such things as the exchange client/exchange
> server protocol, or the domain controller protocols. . . ?
Don't use Exchange. Use Notes. Don't use NT domain controller, use NIS, or
StreetTalk, or NDS, or any of the myriad of domain authorization protocols.
Or even Kerberos!
MSFT controls it's own cables and gas pumps. They control which engines
go into their own cars. This doesn't make them a monopoly.
GM doesn't have to provide specs for putting Ford engines in their cars and
neither should MSFT have to disclose how it runs it's networking protocols.
> > AND the software (long distance server)
>
> MSFT definitely controls the software.
But only it's OWN software, or it's own automobiles, but no one else's.
>
> > and wouldn't let anyone else tap into their cables or service (proprietary
> > APIs) then that analogy would be relevant,
>
> Ask Novell and DR about how willing MS was to let them "tap into their
> cables or services". Or ask the Samba team just how willing MS is to
> let them "tap into their cables or services". . .
Oh, so now it's MSFT's responsibility to make sure Novell and DR are successful?
What was preventing Novell from making a client? What was preventing Dr from
innovating and making it's own GUI?
Novell and DR were bottom feeders from MSFT, and MSFT had no responsibility to
ensure their success.
Novell and DR were stupid for betting their entire existence on another
competing company's niceness.
It'd be like Ford got all it's transmissions from GM. Suddenly, GM changed it's
transmission spec and they weren't compatible with Ford anymore. Why should
GM be forced to ensure Ford's success? Why doesn't Ford go out and make it's
own damend trasmissions?
Likewise, Novell and DR were shortsighted and they got nailed because of it.
In that same breath, Sun should be forced to make sure that Windows runs
on SPAC machines. Otherwise, they're a monopoly!
> So, the analogy is indeed relevant.
Hardly.
> > A more relevant analogy would be that there were many different phone
cabling
> > that long distance providers could use, and consumers could choose from.
>
> Yeah . . . and of course, that *IS* the case (Instant Messaging,
> anyone?) and now it's not just MSFT that's the bad guy . . . AOL should
> be taken out back and given a strapping, too.
Well, it's the same deal. MSFT and Yahoo were whining because AOL wouldn't let
them into their private network.
On no accounts should AOL be forced to allow MSFT and Yahoo to profit from this
service that AOL innovated and is capitalizing on.
MSFT and Yahoo should harness their own damned customers. AOL spent millions
developing customers and use IMs as a means for soliciting customers, now they
should be expected to just ditch that investment and let everyone profit from
their intellectual property?
There's nothing preventing AOL clients from downloading MSN Instant Messenger
or Yahoo's client and using it on their respective networks.
Sure, it'd be _NICE_ to have all three work together, but AOL shouldn't be
forced to do it.
> > MSFT is not a monopoly,
>
> Yes, it is.
No it isn't, and no one has yet to give a good definition why. The DOJ has
strained and contorted facts to get to that definition. MSFT objected several
times and made several motions against these lame and biased definitions, but
the Judge turned them down every time, even though they were legitimate claims
every time! Talk about bias!
> > it just owns the best cables.
>
> And it won't let anybody else attach third party equipment to their
> cables.
Why should it have to? Why don't the cable providers beef up their systems
or make them better? Why? Because they'd rather just bitch at the DOJ and
get mommy (the DOJ) to come in and make the bad guys go away.
"Mommy! He has a bigger piece of cake!"
Should we then take all the money away from those evil rich people and give
it all to the poor?
Why don't we just ditch this darned unfair democratic capitalism and go with
Communism, I mean, it's more fair!
-Chad
------------------------------
From: bob@nospam
Subject: it is OUT, MS is GUILTY !
Date: 3 Apr 2000 14:10:50 -0700
Judge Rules Against Microsoft
WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge today found that Microsoft Corp.
(NasdaqNM:MSFT - news)
violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, legal sources said.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found that the company used its
position to ``monopolize the web browser market'' to the detriment of
competitors, the sources said.
The judge found that Microsoft could also be liable under state
anticompetition laws, said the sources, who spoke only on condition of
anonymity.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000403/ts/microsoft_44.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: 3 Apr 2000 21:47:59 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 13:54:11 -0500, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >The fault in your logic is that MSFT doesn't control PC hardware.
>>
>> They don't? What is PC99 and its predecessors then? Maybe "control" is
>> too strong a word, but they sure do have "influence".
>
>influence. So what? So did all the OEMs, so could other OS manufacturers.
What would be the process for, say, Linus to give input into PC2K or
whatever is coming along? Seems to me that the previous versions came
about because MS said so, with no input from any other software maker.
>In fact, if you knew anything about it, the PC* recommendations are a
>Good Thing and help keep PC manufacturers on the same page. They don't
>HAVE to adhere to it if they don't want to, there's no law.
I don't disagree that they are perhaps a good thing, I disagree that the
process of inventing them is open. It is not.
>> >MSFT has a monopoly on it's own APIs and OS, true, but that doesn't not make
>> >it a monopoly in the OS market.
>>
>> A court of law disagrees with you. It seems likely that this will be
>> affirmed on appeal.
>
>Many state governments have executed "criminals" that were later found
>innocent.
>Simply because the court of law finds in that direction, does not make it
>fact, or even truth.
No, but it does increase the burden of proof on those who disagree. Just
saying you think he's wrong isn't good enough. People don't get released
from death row because Chad Myers said so.
>Judge Jackson has proven he doesn't have a full grasp on the situation,
>that it was will be affirmed on appeal.
>In fact, Judge Jackson has been overruled several times, even just in
>this case alone, let alone other cases.
All judges have been overruled at one time or another. That says nothing
about his overall competence.
>> Was it a monopoly when it was part of Standard Oil? Why?
>
>Because it controlled all oil production and sale of oil. If you bought
>oil, you bought it from Std. Oil.
Ah, but that's not true. Standard Oil did not control the production of
oil, ever. They controlled only the distribution. And even at their
height they had competitors, especially overseas (Shell in particular).
But they _did_ have pricing power. They could control the price of the
product, even though they didn't have 100% of the market. They could
exclude competitor's products from the channel by coercing retailers. MS
has a similar power. Standard Oil also acted to exclude competitors from
markets by using exclusive agreements and by colluding with the railroads
to fix prices for the transport of oil. MS has also done analogous things
in the software business.
The parallels are quite striking really, particularly with regard to the
tactics used. Perhaps if MS is broken up, the parallels will continue,
with Bill tripling his fortune in spite of reduced market share for any
one piece of the company.
>If you buy a PC, you don't buy it from MSFT. If you buy an OS, you can
>buy it from one of many sources. Go to your local BestBuy and count how
>many OSes you can buy for the PC, there are around 6 or so.
Oh, really. Three of them are Windows variants (Win98, WinNT, Win2k). And
what was the situation six months ago? A year ago? Besides, you're here
in this group day after day telling us that all of those other choices are
not viable, worthless, etc, etc.
>If you buy software, it isn't necessarily for Windows. You can buy ApplixWare
>for Linux, for example.
But not on the shelf next to Office down at CompUSA. Especially not six
months ago or a year ago.
>MS used some shady practices with strongarming the OEMs. The only power
>MS had over them was that MS = lots of money to the OEMs. OEMs could've
>taken other routes and not been as immediately profitable, but yet still
>profitable.
The OEM's who testified at the trial disagree with you. Yes, one can
always do what one wants. Even with a gun to your head, you are free to
do whatever you want.
>Apple is a good example. VALinux, Peguin Computing, and many others.
Apple was nearly dead two years ago. The obits were written and waiting
to be published. VA and Penguin are miniscule companies that have
virtually no presence in the retail channel.
>> Except the network effects, secret information, and exclusive OEM preload
>> deals that locked competitors out of the preload market. Sure, you can
>> write it, but will they come?
>
>ApplixWare seems to be doing fairly well. StarOffice wasn't too bad before
>Sun took it over.
Applix found a niche market where they could survive. They made no
attempt whatsoever to sell to consumers until very recently. You're in
here dissing Star Office on a daily basis until it comes time to support
your cockamamie theory that MS is just an innocent victim that made a few
mistakes. You're trying to use events that have occured since the trial,
and may in fact be a result of the trial, to make your case that Jackson
was wrong at the time of the trial about things that happend five years
ago.
>Many vendors are writing software for Linux now. What about them? There
>are choices, and therefore, MS != Monopoly.
I believe that one large contributor to the growth of Linux has been the
DOJ trial. MS had to show some degree of restraint during the trial or
risk losing the PR war. They were under a microscope.
Linux _might_ have caught on anyway, but I don't think you'd see the
current level of support from the established players. Would the likes of
Dell have had the gumption to preload Linux if MS were free to retaliate
by jacking up the price for Windows on them?
>As far as incompetent competitors, Netscape, Novell, and IBM have all
>made several compounding mistakes that lead to their ultimate demise (or
>near-demise) in their respective markets.
Yes, and MS have made major blunders as well. Why are they still around
then? Yeah, I know, Bill Gates is a genius, yadda, yadda, yadda.
>However, Intuit, on the otherhand, was able to innovate rapidly, was
>intelligent, marketed well, produced and KEPT producing a good product
>and was able to beat MSFT.
You don't think it is the least bit odd that Intuit has show no interest
in Linux now or OS/2 when it was selling reasonably well? Continuing with
the Standard Oil analogy, there were numerous sycophant companies that
were allowed to continue to exist as long as they didn't try to expand
beyond certain markets.
>Netscape failed to innovate and keep producing good products.
It is hard to innovate and produce good products when your air supply is
being cut off.
>Novell was the same way. Up until very recently, Novell's NOS, NetWare,
>didn't even have protected memory, virtual memory, or any modern NOS
>features.
Which actually aren't that important for a dedicated file/print server.
I'll grant you that Novell missed an important market with application
serving. They knew that, presumably that's why they bought Unix.
>Netscape did the same thing. If anything, MSFT drives competition by forcing
>these beligerant market leaders off their duffs and back to making decent
>software.
If anything, MS _is_ one of those "beligerant market leaders".
>> Why not? Nobody was FORCED to use AT&T. Customers could always lay their
>> own cable! What was stopping them?
>
>They could either use long distance, or not.
You didn't respond to what I said. I asked why that was. The reason was
that nobody would finance a competitive system because they were afraid
that AT&T would use their market leverage to put it out of business before
it could get off the ground. That's why there was no choice to begin
with. Maybe you should go out and try to get some VC funding for a new
Windows-only office suite just to see if there are any parallels.
>With MSFT, you can either use them, or use one of dozens of other OSes.
>You have a choice, with AT&T, you didn't.
Well, unless you want to interoperate. Then you have to buy MS. That's
one of the tactics AT&T used.
>Std. Oil was bad. Very true, however, it's not even close to MSFT.
>Software is a very robust thing. It's not like MSFT could buy up all the
>rail cars, or buy up the land.
No, but because they have something like 90% of the desktop OS market,
they can throw up large barriers to entry by preventing competitor's
products from fully interoperating with MS products. If you want to sell
a word processor, it pretty much has to be compatible with Word if it is
to get significant market share. MS can change the Word formats at will
to limit the degree of compatibility and then blame it on you saying that
you're not keeping up with innovation.
If you want to sell an OS, they can raise the bar by signing up OEM's to
long-term exclusive deals before your product hits the market. They can
pressure hardware makers to not provide drivers for your OS. And they
do. Or are you going to say that the folks who testified to this at the
trial are liars?
>Rather than branching out and producing more software, they bet their
>whole company on one cheesy browser and didn't have the insight to see
>that there was more money in giving them the browser and selling the
>Internet access or the banner adds, or whatever. Give them the razor,
>sell them the blades.
Wow, you are a genius Chad. Where were they supposed to get the funding
for this? MS can get it from their profits on other products and thereby
force Netscape out of business. Who is going to invest in Netscape under
those conditions?
Netscape should have taken the deal that MS offered. You remember that,
right Chad? The deal where MS would take the PC browser market and
Netscape the rest, else MS would "cut off their air supply"? But MS isn't
anti-competitive. They aren't a monopoly trying to protect it's turf and
this information isn't really part of the trial record and even if it is
it is all vicious lies from jealous, stupid, competitors.
MS are the real victims here. They've been unfairly maligned as a bunch
of greedy double-dealers who will do anything and everything to "win".
They are actually great innovators and upholders of truth and order.
>> But hey, this sort of thing is all fine since nobody FORCED anyone to do
>> anything at gunpoint. Lives and careers were ruined,
>
>Because they were stupid and bet their lives on something that was very
>shortsighted.
Well, I said that in the context of Standard Oil. Shall I take this to
mean that local grocery stores were idiots for betting their lives on
their little corner store? What would you have them do Chad, perhaps go
work in a nice coal mine?
Even in the context of Netscape, that's a stupid statement. It is easy
for you, with the benefit of hindsight, to say that Netscape were stupid,
IBM were stupid, Novell were stupid. But I think you're redefining
"stupid" to mean "that which fails in the face of MS's anti-competitive
tactics".
>> >Also, there is no barrier to entry, as anyone even a foreign college
>> >student (Linus) could cook one up in his dorm room.
>>
>> So, what you're saying is that anyone can gain market share, they just
>> can't make any money at it, but that's not a barrier to entry.
>
>If they want to make money at it, go for it. Just make a better product.
>Make it easy for developers to write applications.
>
>Make it easy for them to port their Win32 applications. Heck, even find a
>way to make Win32 apps run on the system.
But Chad, that's one of those barriers to entry. The Win32 API is _not_
well defined, certainly not well-defined enough to write a clone from the
documentation. And of course MS can change the API at any time, encourage
their little sycophants (e.g. Intuit) to use the new features, and voila,
the competition is "falling behind and failing to innovate" again. IBM
fell into this trap with OS/2.
Which all begs the question of if there are no barriers to entry, if MS
can't "buy up the land" and software is infinitely flexible, then why do
we need to be compatible?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: 3 Apr 2000 16:51:30 -0500
In article <8cah6m$abn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just installed Linux Redhat 6.2 after a few years away from the OS.
>I'm stunned at how much is changed, but i'm beginning to miss the
>things which caused me to return to windows in the first place.
>I'd love a mail program that can sort and search mail. One that can
>automatically place mail in folders based on simple rules. A contact
>list that integrates with the mail program so I only have to maintain
>one list of contacts/email addresses. Netscape mail really sucks. It
>has corrupted my archives several times.
Try running netscape as an imap client. You can use fetchmail
to pull mail from pop-only servers and deliver locally if
you don't normally act as your own server. I've never had
a problem with server-managed imap folders. If netscape's
view is screwed up you can just delete the
~user/ns_imap/host/Mail.sbd/.folder.summary file and
refresh the view. You can also access them interchangebly
with pine, netscape, etc., locally or remotely.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: jt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft IS a monopoly
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 17:06:11 -0500
Why the hell would you look for a legal opinion from the company that is
under investigation? All that nonsense aside you are wrong anyway.
Microsoft IS Guilty under the Sherman Antitrust Act (listen to the news
today). Maybe if the company gets broken up they will start making some
better products and actually earn some of the money that Micro$oft makes
now.
jt
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
