On Monday, July 15, 2002, at 06:59 PM, Michael Halcrow wrote:
> They dictate that in order for me to apply for a job, I have to send my
> resume as a Microsoft Word attachment to the would-be employer.
>
> They dictate that in order to view a Web site, my browser must be
> Internet Explorer.
>
> They dictate that my email reader be able to decipher HTML with
> Microsoft proprietary extensions.
>
> They dictate that in order to watch General Conference over the
> Internet, I must use Windows Media Player.
Whoa there. Let's not get out of hand with blaming the evils of the world
on Microsoft. They're not dictating any of these things, they've simply
provided some technologies that 90% or more of computer users have in
common now. This is thanks to their anti-competitive practices, of course,
but that's another story.
Microsoft has never issued a contract requiring all HR departments who use
their software to accept only Word documents. The HR departments are
simply lazy and decide not to deal with non-Word files.
Most web pages work fine in Mozilla or Opera. Microsoft may prefer that
you use Internet Explorer, but they don't prevent you from using something
else for your web browser. People would, more often than not, like
everyone to be able to view their page. It's out of laziness and/or
disgust at the brokenness of Netscape 4 that they code for IE, not any
diabolical plot on Microsoft's part. IE is gradually getting its
standards compliance bugs fixed, thankfully, and may someday have a
working box model for CSS.
The church was welcome to use RealMedia rather than Microsoft Media Player
format streaming. They made a different decision, probably for financial
reasons. I think it's unfortunate that the church is so tied to Microsoft
right now, but it's a business decision and Microsoft is run by shrewd, if
not always ethical, businessmen.
> 90% of the people out there use Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Word, and
> Microsoft Internet Explorer. Microsoft has been very careful to steer
> people away from open standards, and they have refused to publish
> details that Open Source developers need in order to interoperate with
> Microsoft protocols and file formats. This means that 90% of the people
> out there are going to be speaking a "language" that I cannot "speak"
> because I use free software.
These sorts of things could have easily shot them in the foot if a decent
competitor had got a foot in the door earlier in the game. Realistically,
if you want to control the market you want to encourage people to use
your products over competitors as much as possible. Microsoft is not the
only one who used proprietary file formats. Nothing requires that they
make things convenient for their competitors. However, if some other
operating system had taken over a large part of the market, they'd be
forced, as Apple is, to make their software interoperate with others.
> In the blind interest of corporate profits, Microsoft has damaged our
> society in atrocious ways. Impeding people from being able to
> coorporate, interoperate, and communicate in the way that they have done
> is diabolical. To think of the damage that have done and are doing to
> human progress makes me sick. Monopolies are a serious market weakness
> in any capitalistic economy.
All I can say to this is that you need to take a step back, take a deep
breath, and look at what 'human progress' really is. Yes, Microsoft has
made life difficult for some people in the technology field and they've
done some nasty things, and I don't like the way they play with others
either. If you want to look for things that have seriously damaged our
society, though, I think you'll have to look elsewhere.
> And now there's talk of Palladium, and hardware-based content
> restrictions. Only those who get the stamp of approval from Microsoft
> and Friends can send and receive information! It's 1984 coming true
> right before our eyes, folks.
Now, the Palladium thing is something I find disturbing. I don't think
the blame for this can be placed even mostly on Microsoft, though. This
one belongs to the media corporations who would incorporate Digital Rights
Management into our eyeballs if they thought it could squeeze an extra few
bucks out of us. The flagrant disregard that media companies have for
fair use rights and their persistant reinterpretation and restructuring of
copyright laws does show a potential serious danger to society. What will
happen when new books are published digitally and can only be accessed
through Palladium-enabled readers?
> Linux and free software isn't just an "alternative" for Microsoft. It is
> perhaps our strongest line of defense against tyranny and oppression in
> the digital age.
>
> (To those this applies to): So what are you still doing with that
> Windows partition on your hard drive?
I do agree with you in some respect here, though I think you're still
blowing things a bit out of proportion. There's real hope in Linux that
Microsoft will be forced out of its dominating position. Here's my take
on it.
Because of Microsoft's position in the software economy right now, it's
infeasible for any new company to assail it in the Desktop Operating
System or Office Suite markets. Microsoft has enough captial to outright
buy any competitor because they have never issued dividends on their stock.
All profits go into the bank. This gives them extreme leverage against
any company, which by definition must be a financial entity and subject to
the influence of the almighty dollar. If anyone appears to be gaining
ground with a viable alternative to Windows or Office, which is unlikely
enough given the amount of money it would take for a company to develop
something of that scale, they can easily be removed from competition.
The wonderful thing about Linux, though, and what apparently has Microsoft
worried, is that there is no company that controls it. They try their
hardest to put a negative spin on this, but time is in the favor of Linux
and the free software community. As more people jump on the bandwagon,
Linux and other free systems become what people really need rather than
what Microsoft thinks they need. As momentum grows and more companies
(where MS really makes its money) adopt Linux in different capacities,
Microsoft will be forced to interoperate with it or lose customers to it.
I think we're still a long way from this, but I think it's coming.
Microsoft sees it, and they're scared, but I see them moving more towards
standards in the future and playing on a more level field.
But when Microsoft starts playing fair, who will we have to vilify and
blame all our problems on?
--Levi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the BYU UUG discussion mailing list, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with "UNSUBSCRIBE" as the message body
Visit the BYU UUG website at: http://uug.clubs.byu.edu/
