Linux-Advocacy Digest #464, Volume #27 Tue, 4 Jul 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: M$ is evil - WAS: Re: So where ARE all of these Linux users? (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M$ is evil - WAS: Re: So where ARE all of these Linux users?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 01:16:09 GMT
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > billy ball wrote:
> > >
> > > On 19 Jun 2000 02:36:12 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >:> : So where are all of these folks?
> > > >:>
> > > >:> In every important business in the world, for starters.
> > > >:> Including Microsoft.
> > > >
> > > >: Is Microsoft an important business?
> > > >
> > > > I guess it depends how you define "business,"
> > > > but assuming Microsoft
> > > > can be considered at least in part a business,
> > > > not merely a criminal organization,
>
> To be fair, Microsoft isn't necessarily a criminal organization.
> Several of it's top executives committed criminal acts, but
> they believed that they had done nothing wrong.
Well, I see guy's on T.V. who've been shot or shot at somebody
and they felt they did nothing wrong either.
Nixon did nothing wrong.
Clinton did nothing wrong.
OJ did nothing wrong.
Rodney did nothing wrong....
La-di-da....!
The Justice department doesn't just break up corporations
because they need the ego KICK. There are REASONS.
>
>
> Bill Gates is the victim of his own paranoid delusions in which
> he sincerely believes that he could have his 97% market share control
> of all desktops (Including Macs), decimated by Linux and UNIX in
> as little as 2 years.
To be Bill Gates and not be paranoid of Linux does not compute
to me. If I were Bill Gates, I'd cash in all my chips and go buy an
Island to retire on.
>
>
> As a Linux advocate, I'd love it if he was right. But even if my
> 90 million number (admittedly the largest estimate offered by anybody),
> were accurate, it would still take 3 years at 200% growth to have
> parity with Microsoft.
You aren't thinking here.
>
>
> In reality, there are fewer than 10 million full-time Linux/UNIX
> machines, and there are over 600 million Microsoft users.
> At 200% growth per annum, you'd have 30 million in 2001, 90 million
> in 2002, 270 million in 2003, and 750 million in 2004.
> If Microsoft continues to grow it's market at 20%/annum
> they'd have 720 million in 2001, 864 million in 2002, 1 billion
> in 2003, and 1.3 billion in 2004. This would give Linux just over
> 30% of the market in 2004.
>
This would be accurate for Microsoft if you were ONLY counting
commercial accounts.
The typical PC homeowner will not be able to afford Microsoft past
2004 due to the rapid increases in the cost of the Operating system plus
the cost to upgrade all their applications.
It it upgrade cost! This is the issue.
I could give a flip less if they had twice the number today.
It's already cheaper for most organizations to do business by
buying a mainframe than to buy into Windows as we speak.
>
> Obviously, the best market growth areas would be India (1 billion
> people), China (1.3 billion), Africa (.5 billion), South America
> (.7 billion), and secondary systems (the ability to run multiple
> systems from a single console, resulting in 2:1 or 3:1 machine:user
> ratios).
And here we get back to that dreaded cost issue again.
Then we see Linux being endorced by overseas government's
such as Germany and France, even Great Britian.
These governments want to control costs and improve quality.
The United Nations will not be passing out an endorsement
for Microsoft in the near future. They have to Linux however.
>
> There are 6 billion people on the planet and that is growing at
> the rate of 250 million people per year. If we eventually reach
> the same degree of parity in other countries as we have in the
> U.S. (average 1 machine per 1.2 people). Furthermore, with the
> ability to produce cheaper machines, Linux may be able to reach
> markets that Microsoft can't, Linux has already established a product
> for international markets, and Linux can provide service to multiple
> machines through a single console (and provide service to multiple
> users as well).
No maybe's too it.
>
>
> > > > its market capitalization
> > > > and the prominence of several
> > > >of its products do qualified it as being quite important.
>
> Unfortunately, this is true at several levels. Many mutual funds,
> used to protect the retirement savings of most of the baby boomers
> and their parents, are heavily vested in Microsoft. There are nearly
> $200 billion invested in Microsoft, and another $1 trillion in Microsoft
> dependent ventures.
People win and loose in the Market place everyday!
I don't base which OS I use based on what happens to the stock
market.
>
>
> Microsoft is under pressure to sustain 20% earnings growth rate,
> in a market that has, up to now, been unregulated and under
> the iron-fisted control of Microsoft, specifically, Bill Gates,
> Steve Ballmer, and Steve Alchin.
Another impossible task.
Before Voyager 1 and 2 and some others, there used to be a saying,
and the saying is still true for corporations....
"WHAT GOES UP MUST COME BACK DOWN"
>
>
> Now, Microsoft has to cope with Government intervention, not only
> in the United States, but in Europe, Japan, China, and India.
Microsoft didn't have to cope with it! They could have avoided it
all together. It was THEIR choice to get into the situation they
are in today.
That's what flames me about some people. They actuall BELIEVE
the government is just targeting Microsoft because they can.
How rediculous.
>
>
> Numerous countries have had it with Microsoft's tactics and it's
> refusal to accept responsibility for damages caused by vulnerabilities
> supposedly "fixed" by Microsoft.
Yes. It's an international slap in the face to some!
>
>
> > > very good... the truth is that M$ is an evil company
>
> Microsoft is simply a corporation. Many of the people at
> Microsoft are honest, ethical people who are committed to
> making computers easy to learn and to use.
>
Also how true that when we speak of Microsoft, we
are NOT talking about Joe blow from OFFICE eating his
sandwich on the corner park bench there in Redmond!
We are talking about the executive staff here folks.
We are talking about the brain of Microsoft!
>
> Then there are people who are committed to a "Win at all costs"
> strategy, even if winning involves illegal activities.
And this is what the courts has deemed as criminal.
>
>
> Finally, there are those who have been attracted to Microsoft
> by the ability to manipulate power. While there are probably
> only 8-10 of these type of people, they tend to quickly rise
> to key positions. These are the people the DOJ really wants.
> Mr Alchin may be one of these, and Gates has exibited many of
> these tendencies.
>
> If it were possible to conduct a surgical extraction, the DOJ,
> FTC, and other regulatory agencies would have taken this type
> of action. Unfortunately, when the key perpetrators jointly
> own 51% of the company, it requires a "messy" intervention.
>
> Even with a criminal judgement against them, with the judge
> convicting Microsoft of numerous illegal activities, Microsoft
> not only refuses to accept the judgement of previous activities,
> but they have willfully ignored the judgment and aggressively
> engaged in further anticompetitive tactics judged to be illegal.
There, you used that word! "CRIMINAL JUDGEMENT".
Microsoft is a CRIMINAL COMPANY as it has a
CRIMINAL JUDGEMENT against them.....
>
>
> > > with evil leadership...
>
> One can appreciate Bill's desire to protect a company that he has
> literally built up from a pair of $300 computers. Unfortunately,
> much of that company's fortune was obtained through tactics that
> were unethical, in some cases illegal, and in some cases caused
> the bankruptcies of as many as 200 companies, has created a problem
> for Microsoft, and Bill Gates in particular.
>
> It is entirely possible that Bill Gates specifically has created so
> many enemies, including enemies among his OEM "customer" base, that
> he will find it nearly impossible to employ his usual strong arm
> tactics without facing federal criminal charges, possibly including
> fraud, extortion, blackmail, and racketeering. This would be in
> addition to antitrust violations.
And this is ANOTHER reason Linux will dominate the world.
>
>
> Ironically, the Federal Court's means of dealing with criminal
> activity of this type is to literally turn the company into the prison.
> They literally monitor all communication in and out of the company,
> set up direct lines to accept customer complaints (even crackpot
> complaints must be arbitrated and settled). Compliance officers
> are the corporate equivalent of corrections officers (prison guards),
> but they let you go home at night.
>
> I've worked for a company that had a compliance order. All mail
> was monitored, access to certain sites like hotmail were forbidden,
> and any external communication involving the judgement had to be
> archived electronically on common storage. Furthermore, each user's
> machine could be examined electronically.
>
> > > why else would a
> > > billion-dollar company have to resort to
> > > exploiting handicapped children in its
> > > TV advertising in order to attempt
> > > to sway public opinion?
>
> Many of Microsoft's "charity" contributions have had obvious
> motives, primarily aimed at stemming the proliferation of
> Linux.
I've always felt this was due to the UN praise for Linux in
Africa.
>
>
> When Newark Schools began accepting free computers from
> corporations that were too underpowered to run Windows 95
> or Windows NT, they converted the machines to Linux.
>
> Microsoft appeared with a Clinton aide, at a press event.
> Microsoft was offering $20 million (in Microsoft Software)
> and expected the Federal Government to cover the capital
> costs of additional memory and hard drive upgrades.
>
> When Mexico obtained 150,000 computers for the Mexico City
> public school system, they converted the machines to Linux
> because the machines were too weak to run Windows 98 or Windows
> NT. Microsoft countered with an offer of free software and
> a modest cash grant to upgrade the machines from 4 meg to 32 meg.
> They didn't even offer to upgrade the 500 meg drives. Instead
> they got one of the OEMs to contribute 1 4 gig drive per school.
>
> In each case, part of the deal was that they had to stop converting
> PCs to Linux. Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of soup.
> This is not much different.
>
> Microsoft has tried to torpedo a drive to get 10 million Linux enabled
> computers into 38 countries. Each offer includes terms designed to
> exclude Linux.
>
> If nothing else, adopting Linux seems to be a great way to get free
> software from Microsoft. I wonder if it works for corporations?
And this is another way Microsoft will DIE.
People don't live very long if they are bleeding badly.
Cash from a corporation is like an open wound.
Microsoft will HAVE to give everything away from here on out
to the third world or they will loose to Linux immediately.
This is why Germany and France are endorcing the idea of
having Linux only government offices. It's the only intelligent
thing to do actually.
>
>
> I certainly hope that their vaccination program isn't also
> predicated on unconditional loyalty to Microsoft products.
> Since this is Melinda's charity, they probably wouldn't be
> that grossly insensitive. (if you use Linux, we'll let your
> children die of maleria, tetnus, and diptheria).
>
> > > it's also obvious that few of M$ evil barons
> > > subscribe to the gospel of wealth
>
> According to Bill Gates, corporate executives are motivated by
> two things, greed and fear.
>
> If he is right, it's a sad statement of ethics in american business.
> It means that corporations are run by people who would be willing
> to hustle the savings of grandmothers.
This is nothing new.
I think the time has come for us to realize that the use of PC's in
everyday lives has gone beyond a luxury which is optional.
>
>
> > > - their percentage of return to society
> > > doesn't even come close to 1/1000th of that
> > > donated by former evil barons, such as Vanderbilt,
> > > Carnegie, Rockefeller and so on...
>
> Many of the barons established their philanthropic organizations
> as a way to atone for their prior activities. It's quite likely
> that Microsoft will do the same. Of course, if it puts to many
> strings (exclusion of competitors) on the deal, the whole thing
> could backfire miserably).
What do you mean! An animal can't bleed forever!
The animal dies eventually. Even in they are sucessful
in cutting their own wrists to continue to push the product,
this has little meaning in the long term.
It only serves to demonstrate the incredible stupidity
of the Microsoft corporate executive.
>
>
> > > the meglomania of the M$ leadership
>
> This sounds harsh. However, in 1984, Bill Gates outlined how
> Microsoft would take control of the world's information -
> infrastructure, eventually giving Microsoft control of news,
> radio, television, banking, security systems, and even missle
> defense systems. The result would be that Microsoft would literally
> have control of the global economy, defense, and information
> infrastructure.
I remember this. I remember this.
This was before Windows was even conceived.
>
>
> These plans were derailed by the Internet in 1992-1994, and by
> Linux in 1997-2000. The Internet broke Microsoft's control of
> the network, and Linux/UNIX broke Microsoft's control of the server
> market.
And the funny thing about this was,,, there was NO world wide marketing
effort to accomplish this.
At the time, NO magazines were posting articles about linux in the
business place.
Linux and the media were almost UNKNOWNS.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, was trying to accomplish this task.
It was PURE market force in action....
>
>
> Microsoft is still trying to exploit it's control of the desktop
> by providing "back doors" that give it the ability to collect
> information from targeted machines, including resistant executives.
And you've finally hit on the final measure.
The Microsoft Desktop.
The final reason Microsoft is buried and forgotten.
The huge manpower of the Linux community MET
Microsoft on the desktop since KDE and GNOME came
out. They matched what NT had to offer and offered
more.
With the next generation KDE and GNOME desktops
comming out soon, Microsoft has no rival.
In fact, it will take them 2 years to catch up with
Linux.
Microsoft is an 18 wheeler in the face of the Linux
super chief diesel electric train.
And this will be the last time Linux and Microsoft will
be on level playing fields.
Linux will always be ahead of Microsoft from that point
forward until Microsoft's eventual closing.
>
>
> > > as the company continues to downslide
> > > on the polls of public opinion continues
> > > to become more obvious
>
> Microsoft was very effective in controlling the damage. When DOJ
> prosecuters were pinning down executive after exutive and witness
> after witness in purjury after purjury, MSNBC moved rumors of taped
> conversations between Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp from a back-room
> chat board to their home page.
>
> The tapes did exist, but were illegally obtained and would never have
> been covered, would never have been followed up by Ken Starr, and
> would have exposed the breaking company to violation of privacy
> charges.
>
> Immediately after she asked to call her lawyer (who would have
> explained that she wouldn't be prosecuted, would have encouraged
> her to plead the 5th, and would have published the true nature
> of their relationship), 12 interrogators used every dirty trick
> in the book.
>
> > > (note the rantings of Gates and
> > > Ballmer following M$'s
> > > being declared a monopoly)...
>
> They really don't believe they did anything wrong.
> Of course, neither does the gang-banger who blows away 10 gang
> members with at Mack-11 in "self defense" because one of them
> might have actually tried to kill him someday.
My point exactly... My point exactly....
>
>
> > > particularly disgusting was Paul Allen's plea to the federal judge
> > > concerning the potential value of his 'holdings' in the wake of a
> > > government breakup...
>
> Actually, Paul Allen is probably one of the more innocent victims.
> He left Microsoft years ago, and may have been a key factor in
> Gates' resignation as CEO. Paul Allen actually helped fund many
> companies, including AOL, Transmeta (Linus Torvald's company), and
> a number of other vendors. He also has a huge public works
> organization that funds hundreds of community and education projects.
>
> Paul Allen has been quietly dumping Microsoft shares as quickly as
> he legally can. It's possible that if Gates and Ballmer keep
> dumping their stocks as well, that Microsoft may become vulnerable
> to a coup. The institutional shareholders and venture funds may
> decide that it's in Microsoft's best interest to negotiate.
>
> If Microsoft's top executives insist on this huge high-stakes gamble
> in which even a moderate decision by the Supreme court could result
> in billions of dollars worth of liability and litigation, there may
> be many key investors who will demand a negotiated settlement (in which
> Microsoft executives take personal responsibility for their criminal
> activities) or start dumping the stock.
It was very clear to me, when Gates resigned that Microsoft was
nothing more than a burning wreck with 12 knots behind her still.
>
>
> Microsoft has already lost it's status as worlds largest company
> (by market capitalization), and Gate's standing as world's richest
> man is in jeopardy.
We are just now beginning to see the dawn of a new era.
And era where man and his OS are free.
The era of the big corporate control of the personal computing
arena is comming to an end.
And thus go the huge, crazy costs associated with the
bi-plane era for PC operating systems.
>
>
> > > what i find interesting is that M$ continues
> > > to sh*t on its customers and the consumer,
>
> Put more articulately. They have problems like Melissa,
> ExploreZip, BubbleBoy, and "ILoveYou" and still maintain
> that they are responsible for nothing, that Windows is
> secure, and that Windows is fast, reliable, and cost-effective.
>
I figure the reason they will not fix this problem is because
they don't really want to spend anymore development money
on a dead horse of an operating sytem.
Just make the patient as comfortable as possible in his final
years.
>
> > > while still spouting its self-induced hype that the company
> > > 'innovates'... M$ hasn't innovated anything,
>
> Actually, Microsoft has innovated, these innovations include:
>
> Per Processor Licensing.
>
> Cliff Tiered Pricing
>
> Bundling disguised as "Discounts".
>
> Exclusionary contracts (control of entire boot sequence).
>
> Bundling disguised as "Operating System Enhancements".
>
> Refunds for overpurchases based on proof of 100% compliance.
>
> License Audits.
>
> Client Access Licenses.
>
> Redefinition of concurrent user - from 3 milliseconds to 30 minutes.
>
> Contracts that allow Microsoft to sell intellectual capital funded
> by one competitor to another competitor - even if not delivered
> to the funding competitor.
>
> Co-op advertizing contracts that give Microsoft the right to cancel
> any advertizement showing the Microsoft logo. This gave Microsoft
> control over nearly $4 billion a year in advertizing from 1992 to
> 1998 (possibly beyond).
>
> Contracts which gave it editorial control of both MSNBC web site
> and MSNBC cable. In addition, Microsoft has substantial influence
> over CNBC, and NBC coverage.
>
> > > but merely buys, acquires, or
> > > extinguishes competing technologies...
>
> What is the actual count of companies wiped out (bankruptcies,
> takeovers, and software "graveyards" (shareware now in public
> domain due to the failure of the company).
>
> > > M$ is not a software company,
> > > but an evil business which will now have to
>
> A business isn't evil. To my knowledge there are no faustian
> contracts with the devil, no "burning the saints", no "first
> blood", and no eating of Children. There are no "initiations"
> that involve murder, assault, or criminal drug abuse.
>
> If I'm wrong, feel free to let this be known. I'm sure
> the DEA, FBI, and others would be very interested.
No, true. But there was damn little else left attempted
by Microsoft.
Let's just say that if I were visiting Redmond, I'd damn well
be wearing my suspenders and waiting until I get back to the
Hotel to re-tie those shoelaces.
>
>
> To my knowledge, the worst that has happened to any of Microsoft's
> competitors was Gary Kildall's airplane crash, Larry Ellison's
> sailboat incident, and Wozniak's airplane crash. No indication
> of foul play in any of these cases.
>
> Although, I did get a "learn to fly free" invitation about a year
> ago.
Remember what I said about shoes!
Wear the hush puppies!
>
>
> > > face up to its own music...
> > > Gates painted himself into a corner, and it is
>
> This is probably the most true of all. It's Gate's refusal to
> honor the spirit and intent of any agreement he makes that has
> created the problems Microsoft now faces.
Gates has some kind of mental dis-order.
I just don't think he really gives a shit about
anything anymore.
I used to think he was a different man in the 80's.
>
>
> > > through his foibles and disfunctional
> > > personality that his evil spawn is
> > > now in the situation it faces...
>
> [no comment - just too inflammatory]
>
> Microsoft's executives did create the problems Microsoft
> now faces.
Yes. Linux didn't create them.
Microsoft created them.
>
>
> > > blame no one else, not M$ competitors,
>
> Microsoft had competitors, customers, OEMs, alliance developers,
> ISVs, VARs, and hundreds of others who were double-crossed by
> Microsoft. The end user thinks they are simply making the only
> choice available. What they don't realize is that they are only
> given one choice because of a network of contracts signed by the
> OEMs, VARs, IHVs, ISVs, and Corporate customers that are protected
> from public scrutiny by nondisclosure agreements. Almost none of
> these contracts were agreements that were enthusiastically signed.
Microsoft was our answer to the KGB.
>
>
> In most cases, it was essentially "If you sign these contracts,
> I won't bankrupt your company this year". The contracts said
> "If you don't give us every advantage, exclude competitors, or
> tell anyone anything we don't like, we have the right to nullify
> our side of the bargain.
>
> > > not the federal government, not the states,
>
> The federal government bent over backwards trying to avoid this type
> of confrontation with Microsoft. Microsoft has been under FTC
> investigation since 1987, and has negotiated at least 5 agreements
> to behavioural remedies. Nearly every one of those agreements was
> effectively nullified by Microsoft through the use of weasel clauses
> that made it possible to evade the spirit and intent of the agreement
> through technicalities. Most frequently, these technicalities were
> the result of terms defined by Microsoft. This is why the DOJ and the
> Judge have been so careful about managing the legal definitions.
They gave them more chances to correct the situation than they
should have.
It could be argued that by giving Bill Gates an option, this was
the reason for the massive problem we have today.
>
>
> Microsoft's attempt to counter-offer a remedy to the judge was filled
> with redefinitions intended to nullify the core agreement. It would
> have limited the agreement to such a narrowly defined market, with
> such narrowly defined restrictions, that Microsoft could effectively
> nullify the entire agreement in 2 weeks. 5 years ago, the DOJ would
> have bought it. Today, the DOJ has 17 states pushing the boat.
>
> And why does the DOJ have 17 states riding herd? Because the DOJ
> tried so hard to "be nice" to Microsoft that they appeared to be
> incompetent. Out of frustration, the attourneys general of 20 states
> filed individual lawsuits in federal courts, and state courts. Had
> the DOJ not consolidated the cases, (as a favor to Microsoft), each
> one would have taken a little piece of Microsoft. There was a very
> good chance that Texas would have nullified agreements with Compaq,
> Gateway, and Dell. California would have allowed Netscape to assert
> it's claim of ownership over most of the NSCA code, revoked Microsoft's
> rights to the Web Browser, and each antitrust case would have set
> legal precedents that would have then been used to force public
> disclosure of all Microsoft contracts. Finally, Microsoft would
> have had to either disclose all protocols and application programmer
> interfaces - sufficient to support a GPL implementation, or forfeit
> all rights to all public standards supported by GPL software.
>
Yip. The DOJ did not give Linux users any break in the past.
But they're going to be making up for it soon!
>
> This handling of the case was a HUGE favor to Microsoft, and the
> settlement was extremely generous. The behavioral remedies are
> actually remarkably moderate and offer none of the "either-or"
> ultimatums proposed in the original proposed settlements.
>
> Furthermore, Microsoft would probably have been slapped with
> obstruction of justice charges (as they nearly were during the
> pretrial disclosure motions).
>
> > > not the thousands of pissed-off consumers,
>
> There are 5 sets of pissed-off consumers.
>
> Those frustrated by Microsoft's frequent crashes.
>
> Those frustrated by Microsoft's vulnerability to viruses.
>
> Those frustrated by Microsoft's high prices.
>
> Those frustrated by Microsoft's subversive exclusion of competitors.
>
> This total group amounts to 60% of Microsoft's entire customer
> base.
Humm. What do you call me if I'm pissed off by all 5?
>
>
> About 30% of the entire customer base would like the option of
> being able to run Linux, UNIX, or OS/2. Nearly all of these are
> frustrated by the complexity of trying to install Linux and Windows
> on a co-residentt basis.
>
> Nearly 70% have had some 3rd party software that failed under a
> subsequent release of Windows. If you loved ButtonWare, you were
> out of luck with Windows 3.1 If you loved Trumpet Winsock and Mosaic,
> you were out of luck with Windows 95. If you liked Netscape Navigator,
> you were blown out by Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT. Each
> version did it's best to take-over your web browser and make going
> back as difficult as possible.
>
> > > not the current president,
>
> President Clinton got the double-shaft from Microsoft. Microsoft
> first asked the Clinton administration to consolidate the 20 state
> cases into a single case, then painted Clinton as anti-capitalism.
> Then, when things got ugly for Microsoft, Microsoft gave the Rutheford
> institute and Ken Starr so much publicity and press coverage that they
> had to persue impeachment of the President even with a case that, in
> the light of day (Lewinsky finally free to talk) had absolutely no
> merit and made the Republicans look like a bunch of baboons and storm
> troopers.
>
> > > and not Janet Reno...
>
> Again. Janet Reno was doing Microsoft a favor, but when it suddenly
> became obvious that the DOJ wasn't going to be the "pushover" they had
> been previously (largely because the Attorneys General made control
> of the case a condition of consolidating the cases).
Janet Reno has caused this country numerous terrible things.
Waco and OKC on the top of the list followed by our Cuban kid.
I think I'd rather have the first lady running the case.
>
>
> Three states eventually settled out of court. But the key players
> have stayed in it for the long run. They aren't willing to settle
> for a "cheap victory" that lets Microsoft return to business as usual.
>
> > > M$ has itself to blame... and i love watching it being gutted,
> > > then dancing around the fire, tied to a pole,
> > > with the wolves snapping at its entrails...
>
> Not THAT sounds evil.
>
> I think everyone involved would like to see Microsoft accept a
> behavioral remedy it which it is found to be guilty of criminal
> activity and it agrees to stop. This could even include conditional
> amnesty for previous illegal actions.
I'm involved because I want to see them busted into three peices.
To suggest that Microsoft will behaive itself after all this
is completely absurd.
>
>
> Microsoft refuses to accept any agreement in which it is
> not completely exhonerated. It demands the right to conduct
> business as it sees fit, and even to continue to engage in
> obstruction of Justice.
This is the part which just kills me.
How can people be this fucking stupid.
>
>
> Microsoft will have to take it's chances with the Supreme court.
> The appellate court will probably tread lightly if the Supreme court
> refuses to bypass the appellate court. The fact is that Microsoft had
> numerous chances to work out a deal with an appellate court judge and
> refused to cut a deal.
Again. Stupidity beyond belief!
If I were a Microsoft stockholder, I'd install Linux on my own personal
box today because of this!
And I'd bail on all my Microsoft stocks as soon as it were over.
>
> Now, Microsoft is openly in contempt of court with numerous
> anticompetitive behaviors, claiming that until the Supreme Court
> rules - it's doing nothing illegal.
>
> If a gang-banger was out on bail and awaiting appeal after being
> convicted for Murder, and he went out and shot another 3 people,
> the federal Marshall's would be hauling him into federal custody
> and the Judge would be revoking bail.
>
> Judge Jackson granted an indefinite stay of the behavioral remedies,
> but Microsoft has abused that stay, engaging in even more
> anticompetitive behaviors. The latest includes "no media"
> Windows 2000 licenses. Essentially, if you run software that corrupts
> your hard drive, you have to pay full price for media.
>
> They have also made changes to IE 5 which cause Netscape 4.73 to
> go into a recursion that fills all memory. If you enable IE 5.0 as
> your primary browser, then try to switch back to Netscape, the
> browser claims about 2 kbytes/second, consumes 97% of your CPU, and
> eventually claims all real and swap memory and eventually goes into
> BSOD. The only "cure" is to convert back to IE forever.
>
> > > i wish M$ a slow and lingering death in any vertical or horizontal
> > > industry it has chosen to foul...
>
> That sounds pretty evil :-)
>
> I think it's realistic that Microsoft should be allowed to keep
> a reasonable market share proportionate to the number of competitors.
> About 30% of the market would be fair :-).
NO NO NO NO....
NO NO NO NO....
The judge needs to get to a point where he appoints administrators
of the Microsoft chunks with instructions. Just like with Standard Oil.
Just like with AT&T.
>
>
> If they'd "play nice" maybe they could keep 70% of the market, but
> allow dual-boot (Linux/Windows or UNIX/Windows) systems.
>
> > I could hardly agree more.
> >
> > I have been waiting for this day since 1987,
> > when they filled all of the PC magazines with
> > their 'BEWARE OF UNIX' f.u.d.,
>
> Notice that this happened after Microsoft sold all of it's
> interests in Xenix to SCO. This deal included Microsoft's
> interests in the UNIX market itself. Gates believed that
> with his 25% combined with the SCO CEOs 26%, that he could
> get control of the company by buying outstanding shares of
> the stock.
>
> Immediately after that sale, Microsoft discovered that it was
> now locked out, because the SCO shares were now controlled by
> numerous UNIX vendors, including Sun, IBM, HP, and AT&T.
> Eventually, Novell purchased rights to UNIX from AT&T.
>
> What made matters worse was that X11R3 which came out in 1998,
> provided the very features that Microsoft was trying desparately
> to get. Xerox granted intellectual property rights to their "look
> and feel" which subverted Apple's "look and feel" claims.
>
> Microsoft had been under federal investigation as early as 1987,
> by the Federal Trade Commission. They were investigating Microsoft
> for Fraud, Extortion, and illegal exclusion of competitors.
>
> The fraud came in the form of vaporware. This particular form of
> vaporware was so totally fraudulent that even exceeded the typical
> mildly inflated claims.
>
> Microsoft claimed that MS-DOS 4.0 would feature true multitasking. This
> was a feature that was actually available on DR-DOS, CP/M 86, and UNIX.
> When Microsoft delivered MS-DOS 4.0, and the multitasking was completely
> missing, the FTC decided that this was clear fraud and an attempt to
> prevent competitors from getting into the market.
>
> Also relevent at that time was that Dell, a young flegeling corporation,
> was offering PCs with DR-DOS or SCO UNIX. Microsoft convinced Michael
> Dell that he should revoke his DR-DOS and SCO contracts and switch
> to Microsoft exclusively. No indication of what the basis was for
> making that choice was given, only that Dell was paying substantially
> more for MS-DOS than it paid for DR-DOS.
>
> Dell has always walked a delicate balance. It is one of the favorite
> platforms of SCO, but it has also struggled to avoid retaliation from
> Microsoft.
>
> Microsoft eventually offered an agreement in which it agreed to
> behave, and nullified with a weasel clause. The vote was 3-4 in
> favor of Microsoft, and even then only because Microsoft had promised
> to behave.
>
> Microsoft was investigated in 1991 for illegal tie-in contracts.
> It took 4 years to haggle out an agreement. Microsoft eventually
> agreed to the 1995 consent decree, after 3 previous proposals
> were rejected because they were so obviously voidable.
>
> As it was, Microsoft violated every aspect of the agreement. It
> had been allowed to "grant discounts" but Microsoft engaged in
> "cliff tiered pricing" which made it possible to purchase 120% of
> the needed product for less than 80% of the required product.
> Microsoft also included nearly 80% of the code for Microsoft Office
> in the Operating system, intended to make a "bare bones" version
> of office (Works) available using less than 8 megabytes of additional
> hard drive.
>
> The most flagrant violation was when Microsoft illegally obtained
> the rights to Mosaic, repackaged it with proprietary enhancements as
> Internet Explorer, and bundled it with Windows.
>
> The government had a little problem. Marc Andreeson and numerous
> other contributors to the Mosaic project were now working for Netscape.
> They had agreed to let Spyglass sell "Branding Rights" to Mosaic, but
> had not given permission to make proprietary enhancements. A
> last-minute change missed by the Spyglass lawyers gave Microsoft
> enhancement rights. The government was now obligated to Netscape
> and would have been liable for any damages to the company.
>
> The DOJ tried to force the issue in the Consent Decree trial. Microsoft
> demanded that the entire trial be limited in scope to whether or not
> Internet Explorer was an enhancement.
>
> Eventually, the judge ruled against Microsoft. During the appeal,
> Microsoft didn't argue the evidence of the case, but instead argued
> on the general merits of the case (which the DOJ was not allowed
> to present). They claimed that since the DOJ hadn't proven any
> real damages, that no one was harmed, and therefore Microsoft
> had not only not done any harm, but they had in fact performed
> a public service.
>
> In the current antitrust case, Microsoft tried to limit the scope
> to a few technicalities, and the Judge refused. To limit the scope
> of the case, each side was allowed to call 25 witnesses. Furthermore,
> the DOJ witnesses were available for cross-examination, and depositions
> were taken from each witness prior to their testimony. Microsoft tried
> to mount an ineffective cross-examination. In reality, there were
> almost no suprises for Microsoft - during the prosecution phase.
>
> The DOJ also filed an obstruction of justice claim, and Microsoft
> voluntarily permitted NDA signatories to speak to investigators
> without a Microsoft lawyer present.
>
> This gave the DOJ the ammunition it needed to tear Microsoft apart
> in cross-examination of Defense witnesses.
>
> > claiming that it's
> > evil and cryptic and nasty (as if DOS were coherently written!),
> > when in fact, a 386 and 10 dumb terminals was sufficient to run
> > a 10-person office in 1987, but ONLY *IF* you were running SCO Unix
> > or something similar.
>
> Actually, MP/M, DR-DOS, and numerous versions of UNIX supported
> multiple users. Furthermore, Microsoft knew that UNIX had
> graphics, WYSIWYG editors, and object oriented Windows systems
> such as Sunview, Iegis (Apollo), and of course X11. By 1989,
> X11/R3 was doing things Microsoft wouldn't be able to do until
> Windows 2000.
>
> > --
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > Unix Systems Engineer
> > ICQ # 3056642
> >
>
> --
> Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
> I/T Architect, MIS Director
> http://www.open4success.com
> Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
> and growing at over 5%/month!
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
The instructions to the appointee's should be to make the peices
seperate. To destroy any links they have with the other company
and set dates for completion of this goal.
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
