perhaps you should consider working for them... i use win2000 cos I
currently have to ....
but I have found very little "innovation" in ms products.. and I ought to
know, used to be an oem reseller....
don't get me wrong, they have developed a good working GUI, but have you
seen Geowrite and goeworks? I used to have them on my commodore 64 years
ago, and windows still bears a strange resemblance to that....
strange that...
There is no doubt that MS is a competitor,, the simple matter of the fact is
that you seem to support a monopoly in theory..
I am sure if you worked for one of the hundreds of companies that MS crushed
to get where they are, you would have a more wider view of this...
Take for example... right back at the start, IBM and Microsoft where taken
to court by Digital research who accused them of stealing dos code from
them,, (IBM had to support MS in this because they only had MS dos to work
with back them for the PC)
anyway, they denied it, and tried to prove it by bringing in a PC with msdos
on it, the digital research guy promptly typed in a hidden code, and low an
behold, a digital research copywrite logo appeared in MSdos ... gee, how did
that get there..
obviously MS and IBM lost that case,, and settled.. (although caldera, the
current owner of whats left of digital reseach may be picking up that ball
soon.) anyway, part of the settlement was a gag order,, and thats a standard
tactic for Ms,, every time they lose or settle a court case, they make a gag
order a condition of settlement... which some would argue is a good business
tactic... but its why people like yourself don't hear about all the bad
stuff...
The simple fact of the matter is that when you have 90 odd percent of the
worlds desktop PC's OS, and you offer a bundled package, the chances are,
if it works, most people won't download and try alternatives...
This is not a variable, it is now court proven and apeal denied.. microsoft
ARE a monopoly, and they DO use that to illegally leaverage themselves,
which is fine for ordinary bussiness (not the illegal part, but its not
illegal if you are not a monopoly.), but when you have the size and power of
microsoft, you have to be restrained, because new and innovative companies
or just smaller companies, simply can not compete with a product that comes
for "free" with windows..
Also, you have missed the point of the whole standards things,
XML, SOAP, Wc3 are all standards bodies of recent vintage, they were
designed to enable companies to create "innovative" product that put
everyone on an equal footing... and Sun, Netscape and the other participants
are following them almost religiously... NS 6 beta is a buggy but almost
exact to the letter implimentation of the standards
IE5.5 isn't...
There is no real standard yet for instant messaging, streaming media and
some of the other areas...
and I certainly don't blame AOL for locking out others in the instant
messaging protocols,, I would too in their position..
if they let microsoft instant messanger link with AOL, then who would
download the AOL version since the Ms one is "BUNDLED WITH WINDOWS"??? AIM
would go the way netscape is now....
If people had the choise of downloading MS instant messanger or AOL
messanger, then that would be fair... and I would think that people had a
fair choice..
newbies learn what they have in front of them,, and like IE, Ms instant
messanger is part of windows, and once you learn a piece of software, and it
works well enough.. then most people don't go trying the oppositions
product.... its as simple as that, I can't believe you are saying its not
anticompetitive.. it was so blatent that a team of judges couldn't revoke
the ruling of a judge they all declaired to be prejudiced...
Having said all of that, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I
certainly don't begrudge you yours...
Thats what open source is about, the right to choose,, something Ms don't
think we should know we have... (and most newies don't.)
have a lovely day... :-)
regards
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Jose Mirles [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, 2 July 2001 9:33 AM
To: Franki; Rules Address for MDK
Subject: Re: FW: [newbie] curious ....
On Sunday 01 July 2001 20:21, Franki wrote:
> couple of little points I would add to that...
>
> years ago when the www was new, netscape developed a pretty not browser
> and called it navigator..
>
> ms then came up with IE and in order to get rid of NS, they "bundled" it
> with Windows, so that people who already had a browser would use that
> instead of downloading one,, it worked,,,,
>
No, it was Netscape's refusal to correct errors which still plague it
today that destroyed Netscape. Navigator 3.03 was a rock solid browser,
then Netscape became "big headed" and started creating their own extension
and then tried to throw Communicator at us. They have no one to blame but
themselves. Hardcore Navigator users (me included) simply chose a better
product in IE.
> They are doing the same now to AOL and others with instant messaging and
> media player..
>
MS is doing the same thing to AOL in messaging? Dude, get your facts
straight. AOL OWNS messaging and refuses to cooperate with those that want
an open messaging standard. Not that I blame them, but in this case, they
are totally in the driver's seat. As for media player, nothing, but
nothing is stopping anyone from using whatever they want. MS Media player
is a handy package, frankly I perfer others, but I could see where folks
would like just one app to handle it all.
> do you really want to lose winamp, realplayer and a myriad of others,
> and just use Microsoft media player?
>
I for one wouldn't mind losing Real Player and their outrageous licensing
schemes. WinAmp will remain on my Windows box which also has Media player.
No one is saying you can't have both.
> do you want .NET and hailstorm to hold all your details and credit card
> details and sell the use of them to everyone else??
>
You mean like everyone is doing now, to include State Agencies like the
DOV?
> Thats what microsoft are doing (or trying to do now.)
>
They are just joining a club that has been there for a while, look at AOL.
> Also, microsoft tout full standards support for XML and SOAP (which is a
> method by which different apps in different places written with
> different languages can talk to each other in a standard format...)
>
And the problem there is?
> Then they said that they will "protect their property" (which it isn't)
> by adding hooks to their versions so that no app can talk to a ms app as
> well as another ms app... so JAVA perl and other programs won't be on
> the same level of functionality as anything MS writes.. they did the
> same thing with other APPS as well, like office. it links in to windows
> far better then what other developers are permitted to, the result is
> that the MS apps perform better and ms has garnered another monopoly..
>
So they can't support Open standards and have their own stuff too, like
SUN, IBM, Caldera, RealPlayer, etc?
I really hated it when that biased judge declared MS a monopoly. I use
Linux, my PC came with Windows 98SE and later ME was mailed to me. I
imagine the cd's are around somewhere. No one forced me to switch, I could
have went back to OS2 (IBM won't fully support it), or BEOS, any distro of
Linux, one of the BSD's, etc. MS used superior marketing to sell an
inferior OS. That does not make them a monopoly and a court host by their
rivals doesn't make a very good impression. Hell, I was anti MS until all
that started.
> Also, if Ms are so full of innovation, why is hotmail (a microsoft
> service) still using freebsd servers? and why has microsoft admitted
> nicking freebsd code for their own apps??
>
MS is full of innovation. Thanks to them millions upon million of users
can now use a PC. OS2 didn't do that, neither did UNIX or Linux. It was
Windows 3.1 that started it and Windows 95 that really made PC's sell. I
may not like MS, but I can not denied their kudos.
> and why does the MS license for their programing products say that you
> will be in breach of your license if you use one of the tools you bought
> from us to develop software for any other OS but windows... (like linux
> which they called viral software). yep, thats playing fair...
>
That is playing smart. It would be stupid of them to create tool for the
competition. It is just good business sense to do it the way they did.
Borland is a programming tools company and can do that, not MS.
> doesn't ANY of that make you think that perhaps they are the ones
> stifeling innovation?? it should a several federal US judges thought so,
> and about 80 percent of industry experts appear to as well...
>
It was a very biased decision. I mean with AOL holding messaging, how
could they complain about anyone. Look at Sun and Java, IBM and SNA. They
had a lot of nerve going to court to complain about MS's business
practices.
> I don't hate Microsoft, I wouldn't be that petty... I just hate what
> they are being permitted to do... (IE FORCE absolutly everyone to use
> microsoft products for everything they can get away with...)
>
Didn't force me or a ton of others. Didn't force my job site where
Netscape is the default browser, though everyone downloads IE 5.5 to have
the better browser. "mon, be serious, would you rather use Netscape 6.x
as opposed to using IE 5.x? It was not MS forcing anyone, it was simply
which is the better browser.
> They have done even worse stuff with XP, and they know that they can get
> away with it...
>
There I will agree with you. As I said earlier, I was very anti MS and now
I am getting that anti MS feeling again. I really detest the licensing
trap that MS is going to use. It won't bother me a bit since I will not be
using any MS products, but it is downright wrong.
> Think about it, the whole DOJ case was based on IE being in win95,,,
> they didn't stop, they made millions selling it, all while the court
> case was happening.. the same will happen with XP, by the time they lose
> the case and get made to retract it.. they will have already made their
> millions... and they know it... thats why the are still engaged in
> behaviour that got them in the sh1t in the first place..
>
The court case was about MS's rival wanting to bring MS down a bit.
Everyone knew this. I have always felt that was the reason they were allow
to continue.
XP is totally different. There is no innovation there. MS is out to fill
their wallets with that one, plain and simple. I feel that MS has a right
to protect their code, but calling them everytime you have to rebuild your
box because their crappy OS blows up?
> All of this is provable stuff, go and look at anchordesk.com to see
> ZDnets reports on it..
>
ZDnet contradicts iself. Sometimes they are very anti MS and other times
they are very anti DOJ. The court case at best was a kangroo court case.
I mean when your rivals all get together and take you to court over
something they are guilty of doing themselves?
