Re: [MLUG] News Alert from NYTimes.com

["Igor Izyumin Jr." <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> 1. Breaking up MS would create an economy wherein SEVERAL VERY MONEYED AND
> ALREADY RESPECTED COMPANIES IN VIRTUALLY EVERY FIELD WOULD/COULD DOMINATE.
> Say goodbye to a lot of alternatives.  As it stands, there's one BIG
> company with fingers in a lot of pies.  Breaking up MS essentially hands
> each dept. a pie.

First, there will be several SMALLER companies.  Second, they will compete 
with each other.  Third, they will not be able to monopolize the market by 
using stuff like dumping.  One example of that is their media player.  They 
are killing off the competition by offering their server free with the 
operating system, while competitors actually have make money off of the same 
thing.  Microsoft can do that because they already get the cash with the OS.  
RealNetworks or anybody else can't.  However, nobody will buy real's server 
if they can get the same thing for free.  The only catch is that it only runs 
on windows platforms -- but who cares about the 10% that are not windows?  As 
an end-user, unless you want to miss out on the streaming content, you need 
to purchase windows.  They do the same with pretty much everything - web 
browsers, etc.
Let's see what will happen if the applications company was separate.  That 
company would NOT get the money from the sale of an OS, and they would have 
to COMPETE with realnetworks or whomever and will play within a level field.
The same thing applies to their office suite: if they want to make more 
money, they will have to make the stuff for non-windows platforms, too, since 
they are not profiting from having control of the OS market.
The separate OS company will also have to COMPETE with other vendors instead 
of just making a low-quality OS the only advantage of which is that it's 
compatible with other MS products.

> 2. My mother could never use *NIX.  Most people can't.  Why?  Regardless of
> the progress made by the Gnome and KDE projects, I have yet to find a
> distro. that I can reasonably expect family members, 60 year old realtors,
> and 6 year olds to manage.  Linux is NOT mature, and it's not ready to
> replace Windows on the desktop.  In practice, people aren't ready for it,
> and it's not really ready for people either.  It might be ready sooner of
> the Open Source/*NIX community would get their heads out of their colons
> and actually seriously compete instead of wasting their time and energy
> complaing about MS (and then using a Win XP laptop for a presentation).
> Hell, most of US spend a great deal of time wrangling OUR boxen.  Making
> computing inaccessible to Joe Sixpack damages the PC market.  Damaging the
> overall market hurts the Open Source community.
Who says you have to use linux?  Why?  Windows is not going to disappear if 
you separate the company into 2 divisions, it will only get better.  Just 
look at AT&T.  In the 80s, they were the only telecom company in the US - 
just like MS is in the OS market (don't tell me that Linux can compete with 
it - it is more like an alternative, such as meeting a person physically as 
opposed to using the phone).  Anyway, phone technology was about the same as 
it was in the 60s and 70s.  And you could only buy a phone from AT&T if you 
wanted to be legal.  Also, you could not hook up anything that was not 
approved by AT&T to the phone line.  Basically, it was a complete monopoly.  
After they were broken up, the telecom industry RAPIDLY expanded - you really 
can't compare today's phone technology and 80s technology.  And AT&T didn't 
disappear, either.  In fact, it's still doing pretty strong, but there ARE 
some competitors and the rules are not set just by AT&T.

> 3. Try managing 400+ computers for several clients/organizations.  There is
> something to be said for a modicum of compatibility where business is
> concerned.
See above. 

> 4. The anti-trust hearings were, almost entirely, about Microsoft bundling
> software with their OS.  Initially Internet Explorer, and later things like
> Office, Media Player, and MSN IM.  How is this different from your garden
> variety *NIX distro.?  Honestly now.  You're ADVOCATING a legal action that
> would make KDE illegal.  I LIKE being able to type /stand/sysinstall as
> root and pulling software off of my FreeBSD install CD. 
> Prosecuting/breaking up MS under the pretense that they bundle a web
> browser slits our own throats. There is nothing to keep companies from
> buying and installing 3rd party software.  There is nothing keeping Windows
> users from using ICQ, Winamp, WordPerfect, Eudora, and Netscape instead of
> MSN IM, Windows Media Player, Word, Outlook Express, and Internet Explorer.
>  There's nothing keeping people from playing EverQuest or Ultima Online
> instead of Acheron's call. Windows doesn't come with a guy who stands next
> to you with a gun at your head just in case you want to try somebody else's
> stuff.
Why would you want to download Netscape when there's already a browser?  And 
who says that websites must be compatible with Netscape?  And which browser 
is more stable?  And who controls the platform?  Microsoft can make any piece 
of software incompatible with the OS, or just make it run not as reliably as 
Word or Excel.

> On the other hand, it frustrates me to see an entire company's products
> stigmatized because, and I quote, "they suck."  Last night I saw a group of
> otherwise intelligent people go off on MS Access without ever having used
> it (or knowing what it is, or what it is capable of) because it was _MS_
> Access.  That's not responsible computer science, people.  That's religious
> zealotry, and it negatively impacts the Open Source community's
> effectiveness.  That's one of the reasons I prefer the FreeBSD community --
> they couldn't give a rats rump so long as the tool does the job well.  In
> fact, the BSDers have enjoyed a relatively friendly relationship with
> Microsoft that has benefitted both parties.
Only religious zealots say that "Microsoft Sucks" just because they think so. 
 Most other people justify their claims, and for Win98 that combination is 
true.  However, I would not say that Windows XP sucks.  I may not like it, 
but it does do some things better than Win98.  However, it does not fit my 
needs because of restrictions imposed by microsoft.  I don't like people that 
go off on anything without having a clue.  That's called being a moron.  
However, there are plenty of users who condemn linux without having ever seen 
it, as well.  So don't localize it to the OSS community, most of whom are NOT 
religious zealots.
-- 
-- Igor
--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/