Linux-Advocacy Digest #490, Volume #32 Mon, 26 Feb 01 03:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (Ed Allen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 08:01:03 GMT
In article <jqhm6.49$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >I don't care if the pope contradicts me. These are hard cold facts.
>> >
>> >A) It's a fact that the number of dollars charged for Windows has not
>> >changed in 6 years.
>> >B) It's a fact that inflation has increased in those 6 years.
>> >C) It's a fact that we now recieve more software with windows than we
>did 6
>> >years ago.
>> >D) It's a fact that when inflation increases, the value of the dollar
>> >decreases.
>> >
>> >E) It's a fact that if number of dollars stay the same while inflation
>goes
>> >up, that the actual cost of the product has gone down.
>> >
>> >No amount of email evidence you try to put up will change these
>economical
>> >facts. Stop pretending it's not true.
>> >
>> Both you and M$ will find that those Findings of Fact cannot be
>> ignored forever.
>
>I'm not ignoring the FoF. They are simply irrelvant to this portion of the
>argument. The sun sets in the west may be a fact, but it's irrelevant to
>price of noodles.
>
>> Jim Allchin is the M$ executive who was in charge of IE during the
>> time in question.
>>
>> He said that the OEM price was raised, not the retail one. You have
>> no way of knowing what the OEMs paid. Those numbers were redacted
>> from the court records and the contracts themselves remain secret.
>
>What are you talking about specifically here? OEM's pricing was subject to
>volume and several other factors. If an OEM's volume goes down, it's price
>can go up. It's MSRP has never changed or been exceeded.
>
The retail price does not need to change for the cost to go up.
M$ kept the retail price around ten times what a high volume OEM
would pay for years. I have not kept track.
Since most Windows sales are preloads the OEM price is the important
factor and Allchin indicated that it had been raised.
>> If the retail price of the Windows bundle was ten times what an OEM
>> paid in 1989 and the same number of now inflated dollars were only
>> three times what that OEM paid in 1995 then Jim Allchin would be
>> right that the price went up and it would appear to you that it had
>> not.
>
>OEM's didn't buy Windows in 1989. And even if they did, it was a completely
>different product then. I worked for a major OEM in 1993 (Zeos), and I know
>what they paid for Windows and DOS (I maintained their MRP system). The
>price of Windows 95 was much larger than the price of Windows 3.1, but then
>Windows 95 was a standalone product, while Windows 3.1 required the seperate
>purchase of DOS.
>
When asked what price to expect 95 to be a M$ rep answered that
since it was a combination of the functionality of DOS plus Windows
that the price should be near what the two together cost.
Nobody not beholden to M$ bought that crap about 95 being "an all
new" OS.
Every one else knew it was just bolted together to kill off DRDOS
and the DOS Extenders.
>> >> I have never claimed that MS makes innovation totally stop just
>that
>> >> it raises the cost of bringing such innovation to market.
>> >
>> >Then explain how Debian is able to bring them to market for free.
>> >
>> Because Debian is depending on contributions from around the world
>> to support the users in getting it installed and fixing their
>> problems.
>
>That still doesn't explain how if the cost of bringing things to market has
>raised because of MS, that Debian is still able to do so for free. Whether
>or not people donate time, it's still free for Debian, thus the cost has not
>risen for them to bring their product to market.
>
Debian is not making a profit and no intention of ever making one.
Depending on charity is not a viable business model.
>> >Then what's your argument?
>> >
>> That M$ has been deluding millions of people into thinking that only
>> Bill can have good ideas.
>
>That's not criminal, whether or not it's true or not.
>
Deluding people to obtain money from them is called fraud and it is
illegal.
Proving it is the problem. Lots of little lies add up but each one
can be denied as a "mistake" if challenged.
>> That M$ has been using the preload lockins to exclude any non Bill
>> approved ideas from the desktop.
>
>Not true either. They have had limitations on the "first boot", but OEM's
>are allowed to put anything they want on the desktop, and they always have
>been. They just haven't been allowed to remove things from the desktop.
>
Ah yes. The "copyright trumps antitrust" defense.
Jackson did not allow that to be argued in his court either.
>> That ideas are permitted to open new markets outside the desktop so
>> that Bill can study them away from the view of the faithful and then
>> to buy or steal them to be bolted on to the Windows bundle if their
>> new market looks profitable enough.
>
>"permitted". You act as if MS controls everyone. They don't. Otherwise
>Java would not exist. Linux would not exist.
>
Some things grow more or faster than Bill notices. This Internet
thing for example, he thought it was just a fad that would be
subsumed by MSN.
He tried killing Java. Almost succeeded. Might have if he had not
been distracted by that annoying trial in Washington, D.C.
Linux he thought was only a toy version of Unix. His target was
Sun. He thought they would conquer Linux for him.
>> >Many markets have large financial barriers to entry. You can't come into
>> >the automobile market without spending billions in factory and R&D costs.
>> >You can't get into the processor market without spending billions. You
>> >can't provide long distance service without spending billions in
>> >infrastructure. That's just the cost of getting into a very well
>> >established market.
>> >
>> Hardly something we can reasonably expect to come from a "garage"
>> operation though is it ?
>
>Yet it's happening, isn't it?
>
Only by the largest group of software developers ever gathered
donating their labor.
Does it not raise questions in you as to *why* these people are
trying to throw off the shackles you want us all to accept meekly ?
Not since Hitler have so many people from so many countries around
the world viewed one man as worthy of their hatred.
Don't you wonder how so many millions can hold your hero in such
disgust ?
>> Shows the M$ lie of "We can be put out of business in five years
>> by two kids in a garage" for how false it truly is.
>
>Where do you get this "two kids in a garage" quote from?
>
From an interview with Bill abut the time they were fighting Apple
over the look-n-feel of Windows.
He must have been thinking of Jobs and Wozniac a lot in those days.
Several M$ executives have spouted the
"we could be put out of business in five years" part but they don't
finish it.
Too many journalists laughed out loud at that part I guess.
>> But they require WinCE for embedded. Linux does not require a
>> separate tree for even multiple different CPUs.
>
>I guess it depends on what you mean by same source tree. Embedded linux
>most certainly has it's own unique branches and it lacks much of the
>functionality of a full fledged desktop or server build.
>
The embedded Linux stuff is mostly drivers for the unique hardware
and the one standard kernel with parts of it not compiled in.
The CPU specific parts are quite small.
That is one source tree not complete rewrites like CE and NT are.
>> Linux uses the same source tree in the Beowulf clusters among the
>> Top 500 supercomputers.
>>
>> Is Datacenter the same as Desktop ? If it is then what makes it
>> worth several thousand dollars per CPU ?
>
>Datacenter comes with all kinds of extra software, while the basic kernel is
>the same between all builds.
>
You will have to wave that hand harder if you want me not to notice
that you provide no information about what makes it worth so much
more.
If it is all in software outside the kernel then why does that
software cost more when running on more CPUs ?
>> >In any event, we're talking about end-user technology, not OS developer
>> >technology.
>> >
>> I notice that M$ began to bring out "skins" for XP but is now
>> holding them back.
>
>No, it's going to be skinnable. It's just that the skinning sdk won't be
>publicly available. This is to keep the user interface consistent.
>
More likely they need more time to make it harder for third parties
to develop the skins without learning how to unbolt parts of the
Windows Experience.
>> Linux has had "skins" for at least three years.
>
>And you've been able to use products like WindowBlinds for years as well.
>
So Bill does allow you to know of some third party ideas.
How does he manage to get you to forget that not all of them came
from Redmond originally ?
>> Who is ahead again ?
>>
>> As for developers being left out, one of the primary observations of
>> the "Halloween Documents" was that any user could become a developer
>> because the development tools came on the CD.
>>
>> That is another "Barrier to Entry" being reduced by Open Source as a
>> whole, not just by Linux.
>
>The Halloween Documents were not an official public statement. It was the
>opinions of one technician.
>
Those incriminating emails were not "official" either.
Not being blessed by the M$ propaganda ministry does not make them
false, only revealing.
>> >> Linux has grown from nothing but a mutitasking plaything on Linus'
>> >> desk to running several, I have pointers to ten at least, computers
>> >> in the top 500 largest supercomputers in the world. I have a
>single
>> >> pointer to a W2K member of that group. How is Linux behind by that
>> >> measure ?
>> >
>> >One data item is not a complete picture. Linux has nothing like DirectX.
>> >Windows has more features that beat Linux's features than vice versa.
>> >
>> No Windows has proprietary features denied to Open Source by NDA and
>> contract exclusions.
>
>Sorry, but directly accessing hardware through an abstraction layer is not
>something "denied" to Open Source.
>
But what commands are issued to the hardware to perform those
functions are kept under NDA and any vendor knows that cooperation
with the Open Source folks in the first three years of a products
existence will get them moved from the Friends to the Enemies column
on the list M$ keeps.
Enemies do not get advance notice of new things to come in the next
version of Windows and might get them moved back in the queue for M$
help integrating drivers.
No barrier there, everybody but you a M$ are just delusional.
That's the ticket.
>> That Linux does not have lots of Win32 functions is due to hard work
>> and money buy M$.
>
>I said "like" DirectX. It doesn't have to have the exact API's. It should
>just have something equivelant.
>
>> If your measure of superior is how many Win32 functions are
>> supported then Windows will always be "better."
>>
>> Hardly seems an objective conclusion though.
>
>DirectX is the primary reason that game developers switched from DOS to
>Windows. Clearly this is something that game developers found highly
>useful.
>
I am not a programmer but I think I am supposed to mention OpenGL at
this point.
I find it fascinating that you seem to think games are the measure of
how advanced an OS is.
Never heard of weather simulations or analysing underground
reflections to find oil ?
>> >> Linux today, in delivered code, functions perfectly on 64 bit CPUs.
>> >
>> >Great. MS has shipping versions of NT that also run on 64 bit CPU's. NT
>4
>> >runs fine on Alpha's, which are all 64 bit.
>> >
>> That "shipping code", which is no longer supported, is only able to
>> run in 32 bit mode though.
>
>That's not what you said. You claimed that Linux functions perfectly on 64
>bit CPU's, insinuating that Windows didn't function perfectly on any 64 bit
>CPU's. It did (and still does, even if it's not supported).
>
You are being deliberately obtuse.
No shipping version of any M$ product runs in 64 bit mode. Linux
does on several platforms.
See if you can twist that one around too.
>> M$ was working on a 64 bit version of NT and had some falling out
>> with CompaQ so the, formerly DEC, engineers were directed to stop
>> work till it was cleared up at which point M$ terminated the
>> agreement.
>
>No, Compaq terminated the agreement. They didn't want to spend money on NT
>Alpha support since people weren't compiling their apps for Alpha.
>
I remember seeing a quote from a CompaQ spokesperson saying that M$
terminated the agreement.
But perhaps I am remembering another incident.
>> And Linux is still behind ?
>
>Again, Windows has more features that Linux has no equivelant to than the
>other way around.
>
More hand waving. Still only the DirectX example.
How many mainframes does NT run on ?
>> >NT can run on multiple architectures, simply because it has the ability
>to
>> >do so is the technology, not whether or not it actually is. NT has run
>on
>> >PPC, MIPS, Alpha, and x86 in shipping production code.
>> >
>> All withdrawn because M$ did not have a symbiotic relationship with
>> the other CPU vendors.
>
>No, because those vendors stopped selling machines which could run NT.
>
So hardware makers should conform to what M$ wants to do.
You were the one claiming that they did not control everything.
Which is it really ?
>> Their relationship with Intel is falling apart, do you think any
>> other company will cozy up to them like that again after the Intel
>> testimony at the Antitrust trial ?
>
>To claim that it's "Intel testimony" is a bit dishonest. It was one
>employee that, despite upper managements pressure, testified. Word has it,
>he was inches from losing his job because Intel upper management didn't
>agree with his testimony. In fact, the Intel lawyers wouldn't allow the DOJ
>to meet with him, and he didn't provide any written testimony prior to going
>on the stand. The DOJ took a huge chance putting him up there, because they
>literally had no idea what he was going to say.
>
Intel submitted nothing saying that what he testified was untrue.
Them not wanting to sour their relationship with M$ does not refute
what he said.
If Intel had wanted to refute his testimony in whole or in part do
you think that M$ would have left that out of their appeal ?
>> Two percent behind on twice as many, 50% faster disks, seems like a
>> pretty bad statistic to me.
>
>Only if the speed of the disks was the bottleneck. I doubt it was.
>
M$ approved the hardware. Why would they use better hardware if it
did not help performance ?
Companies like to show how good they are on minimal hardware so that
they can brag about how much better it can be on better hardware.
Do you think they chose better hardware if they could get anywhere
close to 2% on the same hardware ?
Do you think that M$ would have settled for 2% less if they could have
beaten Linux ?
>> Show me the "even one commercial server running" whatever M$ is
>> calling that WebCache thingy they say is not due until May 2001.
>
>The 3.0 version isn't out yet. The 2.0 version is currently available.
>
Tux is undergoing some changes too.
How does both not shipping what was used in the benchmark change the
significance of the numbers ?
>> We all have great confidence that M$ never slips a product delivery.
>
>Oh yes, like the the 2.4 kernel was on-time.
>
Eighteen months is hardly five years but then 2.4 did not have
thirty million lines of new code.
>> >> Not taking defensive measures when you are being attacked is not
>> >> healthy.
>> >
>> >Yet MS isn't supposed to do the same. Your hypocricy is showing.
>> >
>> M$ is the one who offered to divide up the market with the threat of
>> economic death implied by refusal.
>
>There is still a lot of doubt surrounding that meeting. I don't know if
>we'll ever know for sure what really happened there.
>
Sworn testimony is usually acceptable to reasonable people.
>> >Of course not. However, nowhere can the law be interpreted as saying
>that
>> >"acting like it's a life or death situation" is criminal.
>> >
>> Attempting to put competitors out of business is.
>>
>> Corporate "murder" is called "restraint of trade."
>>
>> Attempting it is called "monopolization."
>>
>> That is illegal, just as attempted murder is for you and me.
>
>And none of those things are "acting like it's a life or death situation".
>The OP (I think it was Max) stated that acting so was illegal. It's not.
>
Reread that exchange. You are in severe denial.
I followed the chain of terms needed to point you to the Sherman
Act.
You are saying that what the Sherman Act forbids is not against the
law.
The Sherman Act is a well established law. Breaking it is a felony.
>> >A customer can only compare the value of a product to themselves. For
>> >instance, a pickup truck can compete with an SUV. They both carry
>people,
>> >they just offer different sets of extended functionality and are priced
>> >differently because of it.
>> >
>> Either they can replace each other or not.
>
>Well, they certainly can replace each other for many customers.
>
>> If the number of customers who find them interchangeable is large
>> enough to be a significant share of the customers of each separately
>> then they compete.
>
>Yes, indeed they do. That doesn't mean their prices should be the same
>though.
>
If they both want to win the dollars from the customers which find
them interchangeable they must be close or only one of them gets
chosen.
Only monopolists can hold prices above competitive levels without
losing lots of customers.
That is one of the ways you can identify a monopolist.
>> If the overlap is only a small fraction of one who has an entrenched
>> market which is not in the overlap then there is danger of
>> monopolization.
>
>I don't follow your point. We are talking about comparing prices here.
>
That has to be a troll. You are not that stupid.
>> So Erik,
>>
>> >> >> >> Are you denying that Microsoft has a monopoly ?
>
>In the traditional sense, yes i'm denying that. In the legal sense, I think
>it's a fine line. There are valid arguments either way.
>
What is "the traditional sense" ?
>> >> Diesel trains are more expensive than Dodge trucks and they both
>> >> haul things. Are they competitors ?
>> >
>> >See above.
>> >
>> You did not answer my question. I did not ask about SUVs.
>
>Stop being anal. The arguemnt is the same whether it's SUV's or
>locomotives.
>
You were intentionally missing my point.
Things that can be used to perform the same function do not always
qualify as competitors.
Solaris does not compete with Windows and as long as M$ ties
Datacenter to Windows it cannot compete with Datacenter either.
>> >> I contend that you are mixing fruit again Erik.
>> >>
>> >> No other OS competes for the desktop. Can't, OEM preloads add the
>> >> cost of whatever MS is calling the Windows desktop this quarter to
>> >> any potential competitors' cost.
>> >
>> >Not true. As we've already seen, Linux is being loaded by OEM's without
>the
>> >cost of Windows. BeOS is offered on certain Hitachi systems, again
>without
>> >the cost of Windows. IBM *STILL* sells OS/2 on computers without the
>cost
>> >of windows.
>> >
>> The only competition between Linux and any M$ product is W2K with
>> IIS, SQL Server, and Exchange included.
>
>So, you're contention is that Linux cannot compete with MS on the desktop.
>Glad to know you believe that Linux is so poor there.
>
Why do I detect some note of glee in that ?
That river barges do not compete with canoes does not mean that
canoes are somehow better.
>> That is thousands of dollars on a single CPU box up to tens of
>> thousands on a eight CPU powerhouse versus the under two hundred for
>> Linux in whatever configuration.
>>
>> How is M$ not charging far more than the competition ?
>
>The competition is not only Linux.
>
Again with the "Windows competes with everything on any computer,
even older versions of itself" bullshit.
Erik the M$ PR briefings are not revealing truths in spite of
what they may claim.
>> >> How can OS/2 or BEos or whatever "compete" when somewhere between
>> >> $40 and $90 gets sent to Redmond for every copy sold ?
>> >
>> >That's not been the case for over 6 years.
>> >
>> That is the case extant as long as we have 'cliff tier pricing.'
>
>Consumers buy a complete system, the OS is included in that. This is
>similar to people buying a TiVo. It has the OS included, and there is no
>way for them to buy it without the OS. This is the way consumer electronics
>work.
>
TiVo is not sold as a general purpose computer.
Solaris is not sold on commodity hardware, it is given away for x86,
so its price is no reason for Windows to be priced so high.
Before you start that $89 dollar bullshit. Win98/ME/XP should all
be selling for $13.95 a pop. (That is all a reasonable person would
pay on a day when they are not angry at Bill, on angry days he could
not pay me enough to haul it to the junkyard)
>> Are you claiming that OEMs lied in their evidence produced at the
>trial ?
>
>Which evidence are you speaking of, specifically?
>
About being coerced into deals where buying Windows for 80% of your
machines cost more than 110% did.
That is a deal where you show "commitment" by signing up to sell
more Windows machines this year than you did last year.
I say coerced because it is made clear to the negotiators that not
being "committed" would get them moved to their Enemies list which
you will now claim was not admitted to by M$ witnesses.
>> No I do not go survey vendors every few months just to see what they
>> offer. When I was looking for a computer last year those links were
>> not there.
>
>It's been this way for at least a year. You are simply wrong on this.
>
Yes we know that you know better than I do what I could not find.
>
>The issue here is that in the traditional OS market, which Linux is not a
>member of because they don't have to pay for their developers, OS's cost
>money. Lots of money. That's what the majority of MS's competition does.
>Novell, Solaris, HPUX, DGUX, Irix, etc...
>
>These companies cannot compete with a free OS in the same way. Sun has now
>started giving away their OS for <8 processors, but that's misleading
>because they've built the cost of the OS into their hardware. Solaris x86
>is free, but it's almost useless since it supports so little hardware.
>
Yet you hue to the Redmond line that all OSes on every platform must
be considered competitors.
That other vendors do not have the volume to spread their costs is
no excuse for M$ holding their prices up.
>> When volumes go up efficiencies of scale reduce costs and, when you
>> have competition, prices.
>
>Not in a market like this. Increased competition in software will actually
>cause prices to rise, since economies of scale allow more profit per unit
>the more units you sell. The fewer units you sell, the more your per-unit
>cost is, the less lenient you can be in pricing or R&D.
>
So software is a natural monopoly where a single supplier is more
efficient than multiple competing suppliers.
Are you in favor of it being regulated as the other natural monopolies
are ?
How do we prevent individuals from writing software and then pooling
it like Open Source does today ?
>> Sun writes software, Solaris, designed for hardware which has low
>> volumes. They need to recoup their costs of writing that software.
>>
>> That does not excuse M$ for maintaining monopoly prices in the PC
>> arena.
>
>MS also needs to recoup their costs for writing their software as well, and
>they spend a lot more on R&D and advertising than Sun does.
>
M$ reports between eight and ten billion dollars in profits each
year. I mean profits, after deducting their costs, including
advertising and R&D.
Does not strike me that they are being pressed by competition.
>
>No, that's MacOS Desktop. MacOS X server is $499 (which is a good deal, but
>I think this will change after MacOS X desktop is introduced. MacOS X
>Server has been out for almost a year, and is way behind the desktop).
>
>> How does their having a low price support M$ not overcharging ?
>
>That's a high price. MacOS X Desktop upgrade is $129, while MS's upgrade
>price is $89.
>
Again you are assuming that buying a new computer makes MacOS a
competitor to Win98.
M$ is about to drop 98 from their "supported" list to force people
to upgrade.
>> >> People "buy" it because avoiding it is almost impossible, not
>> >> because they like monopoly crapware.
>> >
>> >Ask any 10 computer owners on the street what OS they want to use. What
>do
>> >you think most of them will say?
>> >
>> If they would buy it without being forced then why does M$ insist
>> that remedies removing their preload restrictions would be "too
>drastic" ?
>
>Their preload restrictions were largely covering the areas of trade dress
>(changing their startup sequence and what ships with the OS (ie removing
>Internet Explorer), which could negatively iimpact MS's image in the
>customers eye because of something the OEM did).
>
Judge Jackson did not buy that "we can control anything anyone does
with our product as long as it is covered by a copyright" talk
either.
An engine maker telling a car maker what the car has to look like
would not fly either.
A component vendor has no right to dictate anything about how their
component fits into the final product.
That M$ does is evidence that they wield monopoly power whether you
think that is "the traditional sense" or not.
>OEM's choose to use windows. There are quite a few OEM's that don't choose
>to use windows at all.
>
None of them major, not even IBM who has years of experience writing
their own OSes.
--
How much do we need to pay you to screw Netscape?
- BILL GATES, to AOL in a 1996 meeting
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
