Responding to Matt Tudor's Tue, Dec 31, 11:53am car analogy:

VW actually did have a fuel cut-off if block temperature got too high. And it wasn't covered by their manual! It happened to me, in the boonies, at night, way before any one thought of cell-phones.

Regards,
Phil Corso, PE
(Boca Raton, FL)
[[email protected]]

 

I'm sure they're not worried about the basic larceny involved. But it's good someone is watching. One wonders if it hasn't occurred to OEMs that a real printer with inexpensive consumables might bring a premium price willingly from people who pay attention. But then, it would be doomed, as MS would refuse to support it. Witness what's happening to Postscript printers counter to their WPS agenda.

Regards

cww

 

Ah, but Michael. It isn't about selling CE at all. It's about controlling and proprietizing the cell phone market. Just as XBox is not about selling the XBox. .NET, etc.It's about control. The control of these emerging markets is worth much more than the tiny hits they are taking. If they can achieve a monopoly in one of these, what does the ROI look like compared to the desktop monopoly? It's simply the next step.

But on the phone thing, here's an interesting article:

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-12-30-003-26-NW-HW-MS

I used the Linux Today link because the reuters link is too long.

Good to know the leopard hasn't changed it's spots. So it is with predators.

Regards

cww

 

Hi Tim

As usual, very reasoned arguments. A few brief comments.

Linnell, Tim wrote:
> - (Curt's comment in reply to my suggestion that Open Source and
> freeware products may act to destroy good niche commercial products)
>
>>Why would this happen? If it's good enough, it should retain a share if
>>all Microsoft's arguments are correct. After all, Windows is actually
>>cheaper according to recent studies commisioned by MS. :^)
>
> Well to some extent it's already happening. GCC is becoming quite
> prevalent in the microcontroller embedded world, and it's becoming quite
> difficult to get capital reqs signed off for alternative commercial
> compilers, even when they are significantly better (IAR being the prime
> example). There's a general problem that the notional zero price tag on
> these and other packages can blind the people signing the cheques, and
> the actual cost of ownership - which can be very high indeed - is ruled
> out of the equation.

And this is juxtaposed with the traditional MS policy of going around the techies and selling to PHBs? I hate that, just like you. This, if true, should be self correcting when the costs are tallied up. It's very difficult to get a grasp on TCO in the nebulous office enviroment, involving primarily people whose main focus isn't platforms. But, from my experience, embedded houses are rather ruthless and even vindictive in their cost accounting. Small, and run by people who are nobody's fool, I doubt that anyone is fooling anyone for long in that arena. That makes them a good watchpoint IMHO, We'll see after a few short lifecycles. The exception will be embedded groups attached to huge corporations, confusion and dogma are the rule there. If the reeducation bump doesn't dissappear, the small companies are agile enugh to switch back pronto.

> Re OpenOffice.Org V1.0. This isn't in fact V1, is it? It is built on top
> of a commercial product, and appears to have been rushed out presumably
> to provide a challenge to MS leasing agreements. As such, it's really a
> pretty dismal effort, I'm afraid, and I speak of someone who had very
> high hopes for it. Yes Curt, you may be able to fix it, but I have
> something that's already fixed.

Partially true. It's reengineered from a commercial product that wasn't similar enough to MS offerings to succeed. Sun bought it and wisely, I think, entered into a unique arrangement where the community work is melded with their own with both a commercial version and an OSS version available. It is dramatically improved and the changes are certainly drastic enough to warrant new product status. And the arrangement is an interesting case study as both versions have been as successful as may be hoped in a monopoly environment.

> Let's have a look at the argument that Microsoft is running a predatory
> monopoly, and is putting people out of business left right and centre,
> since this is one of the standard mantras of the OSS movement. I don't
> think it stacks up at all personally. Sample size one, but consider the
> mix of software I use daily at work:
>
> 1) MS Windows 2000 - Corporate Mandate. Supported by our IT partner IBM
> - I'm happy with it.
> 2) MS Office - Corporate Mandate. Does the job excellently, and replaced
> a varied selection of WP and DTP packages including Latex some years
> ago. The reason for switching was the link between Word and Excel, not
> any 'secret' MS API features. Any other company (WordPerfect) could have
> done the same; MS did it - a straight win on a level playing field.

That is utterly ridiculous. Owning the OS as well, has been known and adjudged to be anything but a level playing field. Your particular case may well have been on features, but to think that bundling and default installs offer no advantage is pretty hard to say with a straight face.

> They
> have done nothing yet to screw up, despite grumbles about the leasing,
> so until something better comes along they have the deal.
> 3) IAR Compilers - not an MS product.
> 4) Atmel IDE - not an MS product.
> 5) Delphi - not an MS product.
> 6) CVS - corporate mandate because of the low cost (hah!). Known
> internally as Gnot a source control system. Works well as a filing
> system for single user products; causes tremendous problems when two
> users are working on a file concurrently and then have to mess around
> resolving merge conflicts. Replaced the excellent PVCS system.

I'm not a defender of CVS, but I don't like the others either. It would be good to examine the ancestry on this and recognize that it may well be a long time before a universal solution is at hand. It's like herding cats.

> 7) Visual Studio - A tremendously good package, sourced and bought on
> merit. Definitely worth the money.

I wouldn't know, it doesn't work at all for me.

> 8) Outlook - Corporate mandate (I switched reluctantly from Eudora, but
> the common adoption of Outlook, and in particularly the diary features,
> have brought benefits to the network).

Also a virtual Pandora's box of problems and security issues. I think once it's synced with reality, the idea's not bad. Although I'm quite reminded of Tolkien: "One ring to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them". It works with nothing else, deliberately. That is not a good world view for the Internet age.

> 9) Explorer - switched from Netscape reluctantly, but no complaints now.
>
> Of the MS products, only Explorer is the one that was an agressive
> attempt by MS to coerce a competitor (Netscape) out of the business by
> producing anything that wasn't competing on features and *comparable*
> price, and as I understand the US judgement it was principally the
> bundling of MS Internet facilities integrally within Windows they had a
> problem with.

Yes, I quite agree that they would have had an even better case with the fact that it was utterly unfeasible to sell machines with and without Windows, being an either or situation which is a clear restriction of trade. And their exclusive licensing wouldn't stand much scrutiny. But that's all pretty much irrelevent when you own the justice system. Borland might disagree on programming tools and Sun actually won one.

> Obviously MS, being late to the Internet and wanting to
> get their server side products (and desktop extension methodologies)
> adopted, attacked aggressively. It's a matter of opinion as to whether
> or not this attack, because backed with a dominant position was anti
> competitive, and I might add the legal judgement is based on a highly
> localised legal framework. Murder is murder wherever you do it, but
> competition law and acceptable business practice varies considerably and
> is not subject to absolute morality.

Or, apparently any other morality either.

> Of the other MS products, there are good reasons for adopting them
> against highly comparable products that simply weren't as good. In no
> cases did any secret bindings to the OS influence the system. On the
> other hand there is a constant battle to justify quite high expenditure
> on professional quality tools sold for a profit. I don't consider myself
> automatically screwed when I give a profit to a vendor - I have a choice
> on what I buy and can relate the value I gain to the investment made. I
> can even see benefits (in terms of my pension and growth in investments)
> from allowing decent profits. I think that there is a simplistic
> attitude that profit is the difference between what something costs and
> the price you are forced to pay, but in any case there are far worse
> examples of rapacious practices than MS - designer clothes made in the
> Far East for example, or even planned obselescence in general.

Yes, these are wrong also, even if they benefit my retirement. I certainly don't begrudge anyone an honest profit in a competitive marketplace.

> Incidentally, in the time I have been using PCs, the overall cost of
> system plus bundled components has actually reduced by about 50%. It is
> difficult to see where the MS monopoly is actually hurting me.

Yes, I know. I'm trying to encourage the broader view.

> In this
> time I've found MS to be pretty good at anticipating and providing
> pretty much exactly what I want; I have never needed to call their tech
> support (neither has my 78 year old Aunt), and they have enhanced, and
> never diminished, the way I can use my PC.

You ought to see what I can do with my PC :^)

But, for this, do they deserve exclusive control of the market and all the markets that depend on it? Are they so beneficant that they should be above the law? Beyond morality? In my view, no entity can have that status in a free market system. That they have nearly achieved it may be a first in business accomplishment. That is probably why we have no effective means to prevent it. But at that point, obviously, you no longer have a free market. And long before that you effectively have restriction of trade.

> Jiri suggested that what niche vendors should do is to group together
> and create common tools. I'm not sure how this could work where the
> groups are competing, or very specialised, though suspect that to some
> extent this may happen (a good example being the Profibus development
> for a common network tool using a device definition language to describe
> devices). OPC (MS based, of course) gives an excellent means of
> interfacing to Scada. But these are limited examples, and my argument
> that creating a culture where software is expected to be given away is
> causing anyone who can't afford to do this to slip under. This
> potentially leaves the ground open to larger companies to use loss
> leaders to grab niche share with probably less good products, so
> ultimately everyone loses something. There IS no such thing as a free
> lunch.

I think that spending your personal capital towards a common goal is hardly free lunch for anyone. I've "paid" quite a bit for Linux and OSS. It's simply a different medium of exchange. One that doesn't favor the wrong parties. And have no fear, at least 95% of the software produced is simply not of widespread interest.

> It's a simple fact that selling anything for less than the cost of
> production distorts competition, and the OSS philanthropists do need to
> take off their white hats from time to time and think a little more
> expansively.

I agree. It's either try to sell an OS in competition with an established monopoly with the power and influence to completely destroy you or compete with them in the only feasible way. Turns out the white hats think it's more fun to compete effectively. The revenues are the same either way, but competing instead of capitulating accomplishes a lot more. What's the third way?

> And maybe consider one of Blake's most incisive comments:
> "Without Contraries there is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion,
> Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary to Human Existence". Oh,
> and "the man who never alters his opinions is like standing water, and
> breeds reptiles of the mind".

Isn't Linux and the OSS community exactly the contrary of Microsoft Inc. ? We're not trying to obliterate our contrary, a perfect balance would be just great for everyone. Would that I could wax so elegant.

Regards

cww

 

Hello List,

AFAIK, 21 December 2002 EC adopted this kind of law...

"The European Commission has adopted a proposal for a Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and a proposal for a
Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. The proposed Directives are designed to tackle the fast increasing waste stream of electrical and electronic equipment and complements European Union measures on landfill and incineration of waste. Increased recycling of electrical and electronic equipment, in accordance with the requirements of the proposal for a WEEE Directive, will limit the total quantity of waste going to final disposal. Producers will be responsible for taking back and recycling electrical and electronic equipment. This will provide incentives to design electrical and electronic equipment in an environmentally more efficient way, which takes waste management aspects fully into account. Consumers will be able to return their equipment free of charge. In order to prevent the generation of hazardous waste, the proposal for a Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances requires the substitution of various heavy metals and brominated flame retardants in new electrical and electronic equipment from 1 January 2008 onwards."

According to WEEE printer manufactirers shell do only refilled inkjets.

more info - http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/docum/00347_en.htm

--
Best regards.
Vladimir E. Zyubin
mailto:[email protected]
Saturday, January 04, 2003, 5:35:14 PM

 

On December 27, 2002 02:09 pm, Linnell, Tim wrote: <clip>
> And the short answer to that question is one hell of a lot. Windows and
> MSDOS revolutionised the PC market by providing a coherent mass market
> OS which vendors could target with a confidence never possible with any
> of the flavours of Unix (Apple effectively won the battle for the PC for
> MS by closing the PC architecture while IBM left theirs open).
<clip>

I assure you that every monopolist will tell you they exercise their monopoly purely for the benefit of consumers. No doubt you have been very pleased at how much more orderly and predictable the oil market has become since OPEC has extended their benificent influence over it. I must admit that I have become rather apprehensive about any possibility of disorder in the diamond market now that diamond mining is developing into an important industry in my own country. Thank goodness DeBeers is there to provide guidance to diamond prices!

> So why is Microsoft so hated? Let's revert back to the Osama Bin Laden
> comparison for a moment, because there's something in there of great
> interest. There are broad similarities between the way the Open Source
> movement views Microsoft and Bill Gates and the way radical Moslems view
> the US and George Bush
<clip>

These comparisons are rediculous and irrelevant and deserve to be forgotten. There are a great many political injustices in the world (which it would not be suitable to enumerate here). I will not trivialise them by comparing them to problems in the software market.

> I touched on the merits of OSS software relative to commercial
> offerings, and Michael Griffin quite rightly pulled me up noting that a
> good deal of commercial software is poor too. I guess what I was trying
> to express here was my disappointment with the lack of quality like for
> like, and the risk of losing good commercial software if free stuff
> prevails.
<clip>

If the "good commercial software" is really that good, then why would it disappear? Sun charges money for Star Office even though it is based on Open Office, and they find plenty of willing takers for it. People believe that Sun has put enough value added into it to make it worth paying for.

All the various Linux vendors charge money if you order a package from them. OSS software is only "free" if you don't count the time you would spend to put the various pieces together yourself. You may not be paying for the actual software, but you are paying for their time and effort in making it easy for you to install and use. You will also find that they also sell conventional proprietary software as well. This isn't the "either/or" situation you hear about in the anti-OSS propaganda.

> Now I don't believe anyone owes the software industry a living - this is
> clearly ridiculous. But if value is squeezed out of software (here I am
> thinking specifically of tools to support automation devices), then it
> won't be produced.
<clip>

To put things a bit more precisely, I don't think you can say the "value" is being "squeezed out of software", just the "price". In any competative market, most consumers will always pay a price which is less than the value of the product to them (if the price were higher than the value, then there would be no sale, of course). If you have a monopoly where the monopolist is able to practice price discrimination, then yes each consumer can be made to pay according to the value of the software. This however, is not the normal case. This may sound a bit pedantic, but the point is important - "squeezing the price" out of any product to deliver all the surplus value to the consumer is in fact a normal characteristic of any functioning competative market.

> And so to the last point, which was to do with why software is expected
> to be given away, when other products of industry are not, which I think
> is related to a double standard in the way we perceive their relative
> values.
It costs money (labour) to duplicate automobiles. It costs nothing to duplicate software. That is the essential difference.

> It would be quite possible for GM (or anyone else) to build a
> car that never rusts away, or a vacumn cleaner or washing machine that
> doesn't fail after 5 years
<clip>

And you can buy that car or vacuum cleaner today. Few people do because they are too expensive.

> Software does not rust, nor does it wear out. If the industry, MS at the
> head, is trying to create some 'rust' equivalent through a forced
> upgrade policy, then I don't see that this is any more or less immoral
> than planned obselescence in other industries, although I don't
> personally support it. Why do we apply these double standards as to the
> relative value of software versus, say, a car (which we continuously
> have to replace, just like the constantly re-purchased software 'wheel'
> Mark spoke about)? I have no answer, but it intrigues me.
<clip>

You don't have to buy a new automobile if you don't want to. If it runs, and it's safe, and it doesn't pollute the air too much, then you can still drive it regardless of how much the original manufacturer would like you to buy a new one. The OEM isn't regularly changing the road to make the old cars incompatable with it. The limitations on how long a practical car or a vacuum cleaner will last are due to the limitations of human knowledge. Have you noticed how the auto makers have been offering longer waranties? That would seem to suggest they are responding as well as they can to consumer demand for longer lasting cars.

Why should software be any different from a car in that respect? If the software runs and it does everything you want it to, why should you have to replace it? The supposed productivity gains of new features are seldom realised by most people. New software should offer a genuine benefit.

> I hope this is a better expression of what are in fact several different
> arguments, and that I've countered some of the points made against mine.
What you haven't done is repeal the laws of supply and demand. "Forced upgrades" as a means of salvation for the software industry is a dubious proposition. There is no reason why this would increase demand, as opposed to just diverting what money there is into different pockets. If a monopolist increases the cost of aquiring and operating a computer, this will decrease the demand for computers, and therefore also decrease the demand for software in general.

For a monopolist, this is compensated for by the increased profit on the reduced sales. For a company which is in a related market, there is both a loss of sales and a loss of potential profits. For society as a whole, there is a "dead weight" loss, as the gains of the monopolist will be less than the losses of everyone else (this is why monopolies are an overall drag on the economy).

> I think I've been quite consistent in previous posts on the subject that
> what I actually believe - sympathy for the Devil notwithstanding - is
> that there is a place for both models.
<clip>

I believe that the prime spokesman for saying that there is no place for both models has been Microsoft. They were calling OSS evil and a "cancer" (their description) in the software industry. This campaign backfired so badly on them that they have recently changed tack to concentrate on total cost of ownership. I'm not very sure that this is going to work any better for them either.

> MS have problems with
> sustaining growth precisely because of their dominance and they can't
> simply buy new markets, as Xbox, their mobile phones, Win CE, and so on
> have. They made some mistakes with strategy - that I might have made in
> their place - but MS is not Enron;
<clip>

I won't try to predict Microsoft's future growth, as I am not a financial analyst. They do however point out in their own financial reports that they don't expect the new businesses they are expanding into to be as profitable as Windows desktop or Office (so far the new businesses have all rung up huge losses).

As for whether Microsoft is Enron, well I'm not an accountant either so I wouldn't be prepared to comment one way or the other on a subject as sensitive as this.

--

************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************

 

>I assure you that every monopolist will tell you they exercise their
>monopoly purely for the benefit of consumers. No doubt you have been
>very pleased at how much more orderly and predictable the oil market has
>become since OPEC has extended their benificent influence over it. I
>must admit that I have become rather apprehensive about any possibility
>of disorder in the diamond market now that diamond mining is developing
>into an important industry in my own country. Thank goodness DeBeers is
>there to provide guidance to diamond prices!

You're putting words into my mouth (and perhaps being unnecessarily sarcastic). What I was arguing overall is that whatever their motivations, the existence of Microsoft has been a demonstrable net benefit to the software industry. What I would really like is that these interminable Microsoft bashing threads move away from a simplistic notion of "Microsoft bad, others good" and acknowledge that the truth is far more complicated. What *have* the Romans done for us?

Let's look at OPEC though, since you've brought them up. Is it actually a bad thing that the producers of oil in the developing world (as it was when OPEC formed) band together to get a fair price for their product instead of being exploited by Western oil firms? (Read Richard John's "The House of Saud" for an excellent account of how this happened). You may not like it, but there are benefits both for them in providing cash for their domestic economy, and for the rest of the world in providing an impetus for a reduction in consumption by increased efficiency, and hence less CO2 emissions, by dint of higher prices. You have to weigh such benefits against the cost to you personally, and I don't think it's quite so clear that it's a net deficit.

>> So why is Microsoft so hated? Let's revert back to the Osama Bin Laden
>> comparison for a moment, because there's something in there of great
>> interest. There are broad similarities between the way the Open Source
>> movement views Microsoft and Bill Gates and the way radical Moslems
>> view the US and George Bush
><clip>
>
>These comparisons are rediculous and irrelevant and deserve to be
>forgotten. There are a great many political injustices in the world
>(which it would not be suitable to enumerate here). I will not
>trivialise them by comparing them to problems in the software market.

I specifically acknowledged the moral non-equivalence in the part of the quote you clipped. But I stand by the comparison, because I do believe that the hate fuelled attacks on Microsoft and ridiculous personal demonization of Bill Gates is directly analogous to the way much of the Muslim world looks at the US and it's president: both are absolutely wrong. Curt specifically invoked Bin Laden as morally equivalent to Bill Gates, and in fact suggested Gates was somehow worse (he would rather have Bin Laden hacking into his computer than Gates). I was horrified and angered beyond comprehension by his statements, until I thought about it and realised that both stem from the same myopic world view, fuelled by a vicious feedback loop caused by insularity (a small group of mutually supportive people holding various rather fixed views and accepted wisdoms with a lack of any desire to consider an alternative view).

This is why I created a devils advocacy thread. Specifically devils advocacy.

The quotes I made from William Blake came from a tremendous piece called "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell", in which Blake examines various aspects of "contraries". In one memorable passage he is guided by an angel to view hell which consists of terrible fire and brimstone, yet when he passes into it he
discovers a quiet pool with a piper gently playing. What seemed dreadful from the point of view of the angel's metaphysics is different from his own. Or more succinctly, you can never understand how the other guy sees things until you have placed yourself in his shoes and stomped around in them for a bit.

So when you put yourself in a position where you believe you have a position that is principled and unassailably 'right', the result is inevitably conflict with someone holding the opposing view for their own equally principled reasons. And both of you are wrong.

This is the crux of my position really. Of course you could (and I would) argue that Microsoft's view of OSS is equally myopic. But I think they are panicking, because they are seeing their growth prospects vanish for a number of reasons as laid out previously, and making very poor judgements generally. As IBM demonstrated in the 1980s, dominance at one point in time is no guarantee of continued success, and things can collapse surprisingly quickly.

Incidentally, from what I have heard of Linus Torvald, he takes the position that hate of Microsoft is no basis for a software development methodology. I don't personally think it surprising that Linux is one of the better pieces of software (in general, from whatever model) to have been produced in recent years: indeed I regard open-mindedness as the cornerstone of good software development; one has to suppress the ego and personal opinions to some extent to consider alternatives, even if they are against the grain of a particular much cherished architecture.

>If the "good commercial software" is really that good, then why would it
>disappear? Sun charges money for Star Office even though it is based on
>Open Office, and they find plenty of willing takers for it. People
>believe that Sun has put enough value added into it to make it worth
>paying for.

I've already dealt with the question of disappearing commercial software. It *is* going in many areas, and as I pointed out, small automation vendors are unlikely to be able to afford the development cost of good tools because they are expected to be given away. Big companies can use loss leaders (cf supermarkets); small companies (cf corner shops) can't. I am *not* arguing that OSS is all bad, but rather that it can be not all good in rather surprising and unforeseen ways. And I am arguing that it can be bad from the point of view of the consumer, because eventually you end up with the larger companies dominating because of economies of scale.

>All the various Linux vendors charge money if you order a package from
>them. OSS software is only "free" if you don't count the time you would
>spend to put the various pieces together yourself. You may not be paying
>for the actual software, but you are paying for their time and effort in
>making it easy for you to install and use. You will also find that they
>also sell conventional proprietary software as well. This isn't the
>"either/or" situation you hear about in the anti-OSS propaganda.

I agree (and with the point about value and price, which I don't consider at all pedantic). In fact I have been very consistent when stating my actual beliefs that I believe fundamentally that there is a place for both approaches. Both feed off each other to produce a world where the price I pay for hardware and software decreases, and the capabilities they give me increases. I'm not unhappy with the status quo.

>> And so to the last point, which was to do with why software is
>> expected to be given away, when other products of industry are not,
>> which I think is related to a double standard in the way we perceive
>> their relative values.
>
>It costs money (labour) to duplicate automobiles. It costs nothing to
>duplicate software. That is the essential difference.

This would be a valid point if on the release of the software, the R&D stopped. The cost of software factors in the R&D of future products, which is considerable. It's arguable whether the operating margins made by Microsoft are excessive, and I don't want to get into that, but if the cost of R&D is non-zero, then giving software away is a net cost to the producer. Why should we expect it?

To put it another way, do we expect designer clothes to be free when they are made at very low cost by low paid operatives? Of course not. We are (I think) persuaded by the 'copiability' and intrinsic low cost of digital media that because we *can* copy it cheaply, we should have a *right* to. It's a dual standard.

>> It would be quite possible for GM (or anyone else) to build a
>> car that never rusts away, or a vacumn cleaner or washing machine that
>> doesn't fail after 5 years
>
>And you can buy that car or vacuum cleaner today. Few people do because
>they are too expensive.

Where? Rolls Royce are the only company that comes to mind in terms of automobiles, and they were bought out by a mass market competitor, BMW. I can think of no company that offers more than a 2 year warranty on vacumn cleaners, and nothing more than a 3 year anti corrosion warranty. People put up with this (I suspect) partly because it is cool to have new stuff from a 'lifestyle' perspective, and partly because in absolute terms it doesn't cost all that much. But I would suspect the direct
expenditure on software and computer hardware is much less per capita, so why do we get hot under the collar about Microsoft, when we don't about General Motors?

>> Software does not rust, nor does it wear out. If the industry, MS at
>> the head, is trying to create some 'rust' equivalent through a forced
>> upgrade policy, then I don't see that this is any more or less immoral
>> than planned obselescence in other industries,
>
>You don't have to buy a new automobile if you don't want to. If it runs,
>and it's safe, and it doesn't pollute the air too much, then you can
>still drive it regardless of how much the original manufacturer would
>like you to buy a new one. The OEM isn't regularly changing the road to
>make the old cars incompatable with it. The limitations on how long a
>practical car or a vacuum cleaner will last are due to the limitations
>of human knowledge...

(Funny though how human knowledge did a better job of vacumn cleaners in the 1950s (my parents were still using their post-war model in the late 1970s and it worked wonderfully, whereas all the ones I've bought since the 1980s have lasted about 5 years each!)).

>... Have you noticed how the auto makers have been
>offering longer waranties? That would seem to suggest they are
>responding as well as they can to consumer demand for longer lasting
>cars.

You still pay a good deal more to drive an automobile than you do on software - I guarantee it. It's a fine distinction to say that 'changing the road' is any worse than having thousands of dollars worth of car rust to bits after 10 years (bearing in mind that old cars cost more to keep roadworthy than new ones, and spare parts are not exactly sold at below cost). I wasn't arguing that either approach was 'good' in any absolute sense (and in my original piece acknowledged that in fact I disagree with both) - but rather that it is not necessarily different from practices we implicity accept in other walks of life, and where the actual cost to us is much greater in absolute terms.

> If
>a monopolist increases the cost of aquiring and operating a computer,
>this will decrease the demand for computers, and therefore also decrease
>the demand for software in general.

I see no sign of this happening. Computers are so ubiquitious now that the only thing that will stop sales is that there is no reason to buy a new one (cf the stagnation of the TV market prior to introduction of the widescreen TV). The 'monopolist' (by which I assume you mean Intel and MS, though I would insert IBM in the initial grouping) seems to have contrived to reduce prices rather than raise them, at least over the past 10 years.

>I believe that the prime spokesman for saying that there is no place for
>both models has been Microsoft. They were calling OSS evil and a
>"cancer" (their description) in the software industry. This campaign
>backfired so badly on them that they have recently changed tack to
>concentrate on total cost of ownership. I'm not very sure that this is
>going to work any better for them either.

I absolutely agree with all of this. As I said, they have hit the ceiling for growth, and I think are at their zenith. You'll see a progression of increasingly dubious ideas to squeeze more cash out of their existing customers and try to find some new ones (anyone for a 'smart fridge magnet'?), but fundamentally, the mammals (the small adaptable niche players) are much better placed in all respects apart from being able to chuck cash at the market (which is likely to fail for no better reason than MS is 'uncool' in the very markets it's looking for - young affluent gadget buyers).

Cheers

Tim Linnell

 

All, Here are a number of points from my perspective.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Microsoft has been a demonstrable net benefit to the
> software industry
Companies such as Apple, Corel, Novel, Sun might argue with that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~ OPEC vs MS: OPEC is a consortium of oil producers who agree together on actions they will take. MS is a single company who insists on having the upper hand in their relationships. They're not comparable.

~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Romans: The Roman Empire is dead. MS is nowhere near dead (yet). And I'm sure all the folks that were conquered by the Romans didn't feel improved by their benefactors. However, I do like the comparison of MS to the Romans. I guess that would mean that everyone else would be the Greeks, the Egyptians, etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Microsoft bad, others good": No, Microsoft actions Bad, others suffer.


~~~~~~~~~~~~ Comparison to Osama: a bad joke that deserves to be forgotten.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
> You still pay a good deal more to drive an automobile than you do
> on software - I guarantee it. It's a fine distinction to say that
> 'changing the road' is any worse than having thousands of dollars worth
> of car rust to bits after 10 years (bearing in mind that old cars cost
> more to keep roadworthy
> than new ones, and spare parts are not exactly sold at below cost). I
> wasn't arguing that either approach was 'good' in any absolute sense
> (and in my original piece acknowledged that in fact I disagree with
> both) - but rather that it is not necessarily different from practices
> we implicity accept
> in other walks of life, and where the actual cost to us is much greater
> in absolute terms.


Costs are not the concern. The problem is MS's behavior, the resulting attrition of MS's competition and the affect on us, the market. The comparison to other non-software markets isn't valid because there is no single dominant producer present there.

As for accepted practices in other markets, I can still buy gas and parts for my car, and bags for my vacuum cleaner. They still work. On the other hand, the computers collecting dust at my office are just that, collecting dust. The only reason for their being in that state is that the software we use, as determined by the need to maintain compatibility with our vendors' software, does not support them or is too bloated to run on them. As it happens, MS is a driving force in the market that our software vendors (Rockwell, Wonderware, etc) cater to. One specific example is the fact that RSLogix5000 requires minimum NT4.0 or W2K with the latest service packs. W95/98 is not supported. Rockwell documents don't mention non-MS operating systems.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I absolutely agree with all of this. As I said, they have hit the
> ceiling for growth, and I think are at their zenith. You'll see a
> progression
> of increasingly dubious ideas to squeeze more cash out of their existing
> customers and try to find some new ones (anyone for a 'smart fridge
> magnet'?),


So, if I read this correctly, MS is going to make us pay simply to maintain their position, like the Romans? What concerns me about MS having achieved their zenith is that there is an implied decline and demise, and possible rise of another empire. That said, the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians are not completely gone. Their ancestors are still around. As are their monuments and elements of their cultures, if only in books, museums, and other preserves.

To say the least, MS or some child of MS will be around for a long time. We can bitch and complain about MS (and spout love for Linux) all we want, it is simply not going to disappear.

In the here and now, I'm still using MS products and grumbling all the way.

Anthony Kerstens P.Eng.

 

Hi Tim

>>I assure you that every monopolist will tell you they exercise their
>>monopoly purely for the benefit of consumers. No doubt you have been
>>very pleased at how much more orderly and predictable the oil market
>>has become since OPEC has extended their benificent influence over it.
>>I must admit that I have become rather apprehensive about any
>>possibility of disorder in the diamond market now that diamond mining
>>is developing into an important industry in my own country. Thank
>>goodness DeBeers is there to provide guidance to diamond prices!
>
>
> You're putting words into my mouth (and perhaps being unnecessarily
> sarcastic).
> What I was arguing overall is that whatever their motivations, the
> existence of Microsoft has been a demonstrable net benefit to the
> software industry. What I would really like is that these interminable
> Microsoft bashing
> threads move away from a simplistic notion of "Microsoft bad, others
> good" and
> acknowledge that the truth is far more complicated. What *have* the
> Romans done for us?
>
> Let's look at OPEC though, since you've brought them up. Is it actually
> a bad thing that the producers of oil in the developing world (as it was
> when OPEC formed) band together to get a fair price for their product
> instead of being exploited by Western oil firms? (Read Richard John's
> "The House of Saud" for an excellent account of how this happened). You
> may not like it, but there are benefits both for them in providing cash
> for their domestic economy, and for the rest of the world in providing
> an impetus for a reduction in consumption by increased efficiency, and
> hence less CO2 emissions, by dint of higher prices. You have to weigh
> such benefits against the cost to you personally, and I don't think it's
> quite so clear that it's a net deficit.


Yes but OPEC doesn't nuke Venezuala or the Russians or Mexico to perfect their monopoly and consolidate their control. Once again, a monopoly is not necessarily evil. Abuse of that power is the problem. OPEC is being smart enough not try to use their power to shut down the US even though they hate us. They don't abuse the power because there would be dire consequences. Microsoft abuses the power because there are no consequences when you own enough politicians.

>>>So why is Microsoft so hated? Let's revert back to the Osama Bin
>>>Laden comparison for a moment, because there's something in there of
>>>great interest. There are broad similarities between the way the Open
>>>Source movement views Microsoft and Bill Gates and the way radical
>>>Moslems view the US and George Bush
>>
>><clip>
>>
>>These comparisons are rediculous and irrelevant and deserve to be
>>forgotten. There are a great many political injustices in the world
>>(which it would not be suitable to enumerate here). I will not
>>trivialise them by comparing them to problems in the software market.

> I specifically acknowledged the moral non-equivalence in the part of the
> quote
> you clipped. But I stand by the comparison, because I do believe that
> the hate fuelled attacks on Microsoft and ridiculous personal
> demonization of
> Bill Gates is directly analogous to the way much of the Muslim world
> looks at
> the US and it's president: both are absolutely wrong. Curt
> specifically invoked Bin Laden as morally equivalent to Bill Gates, and
> in fact suggested Gates was somehow worse (he would rather have Bin
> Laden hacking into his computer than Gates).

I suggest you read the original again. And if I am wrong, then there's a strong probability that the antitrust suit would have been thrown out as frivolous rather than resulting in conviction. Of course, all those government folks are involved in the vast OSS conspiracy too :^). No, I'm sorry, while it's convenient to brand anyone opposed to MS hegemony as as a religious zealot, the offenses aren't imagined or interpretive in nature, they are being upheld by the courts. And many other governments are veering away from MS due to these same issues. And, you can't even successfully attack my credentials on these issues as nothing I'm complaining about can be shown to be groundless or even technically incorrect. You might attack the illustrations or the rhetoric, but the issues and offences are rigorously documented.

> I was horrified and angered
> beyond comprehension by his statements, until I thought about it and
> realised that both stem from the same myopic world view, fuelled by a
> vicious feedback
> loop caused by insularity (a small group of mutually supportive people
> holding various rather fixed views and accepted wisdoms with a lack of
> any desire to consider an alternative view).

Not at all, I was of a similar view to yours, that the net Microsoft influence ( not to be confused with .NET ) was highly positive and lead to standardization. And I still agree with that view of their early history. But that was while they were competing in a very competitive marketplace. And, I didn't let that blind me when they reached an azimuth and switched from a constructive force to a destructive force once they had the power to do so. And I further maintain that, since I was there, in the business, and experienced the changes first hand, I have reasonable credibility in the matter. All the marketing and propaganda in the world can't change the facts. Many on the list here have no inkling of how they got where thay are. Now they are going wild over the very modest competition that Linux offers when the best possible result will merely be a return to a competitive landscape.

> This is why I created a devils advocacy thread. Specifically devils
> advocacy.
>
> The quotes I made from William Blake came from a tremendous piece called
> "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell", in which Blake examines various
> aspects of "contraries". In one memorable passage he is guided by an
> angel to view hell
> which consists of terrible fire and brimstone, yet when he passes into
> it he discovers a quiet pool with a piper gently playing. What seemed
> dreadful from
> the point of view of the angel's metaphysics is different from his own.
> Or more
> succinctly, you can never understand how the other guy sees things until
> you have placed yourself in his shoes and stomped around in them for a
> bit.

I quite agree, you have absolutely no grasp of how far down the road we've gone until you try to do your daily work with something other than Windows.

> So when you put yourself in a position where you believe you have a
> position that is principled and unassailably 'right', the result is
> inevitably conflict with someone holding the opposing view for their own
> equally principled reasons. And both of you are wrong.

I have no quarrel with your principles, it's the moral and ethical bankruptcy of a predatory monopoly I have a problem with. I try hard to place more weight on the arguments of those that disagree with me than those who agree. Otherwise I'd just go visit Slashdot.

> This is the crux of my position really. Of course you could (and I
> would) argue that Microsoft's view of OSS is equally myopic. But I think
> they are panicking, because they are seeing their growth prospects
> vanish for a number of reasons as laid out previously, and making very
> poor judgements generally. As IBM demonstrated in the 1980s, dominance
> at one point in time is no guarantee of continued success, and things
> can collapse surprisingly quickly.

Believe it or not, I wouldn't care to see their total demise or collapse. I would much prefer that there be competition. I will be quite happy if we can get to the point where both are supported equally, along with such others as acquire a following. And I firmly believe it would be good for them as well. Once their monopoly power is broken and they can't screw screw things up for non-microsoft users I can simply ignore them.

> Incidentally, from what I have heard of Linus Torvald, he takes
> the position that hate of Microsoft is no basis for a software
> development methodology. I don't personally think it surprising that
> Linux is one of the better pieces of software (in general, from whatever
> model) to have been produced in recent years: indeed I regard
> open-mindedness as the cornerstone of good software development; one has
> to suppress the ego and personal opinions to some extent to consider
> alternatives, even if they are against the grain of a particular much
> cherished architecture.

>>If the "good commercial software" is really that good, then why would
>>it disappear? Sun charges money for Star Office even though it is based
>>on Open Office, and they find plenty of willing takers for it. People
>>believe that Sun has put enough value added into it to make it worth
>>paying for.

> I've already dealt with the question of disappearing commercial
> software. It *is* going in many areas, and as I pointed out, small
> automation vendors are unlikely to be able to afford the development
> cost of good tools because they are expected to be given away. Big
> companies can use loss leaders (cf supermarkets); small companies (cf
> corner shops) can't. I am *not* arguing that
> OSS is all bad, but rather that it can be not all good in rather
> surprising and unforeseen ways. And I am arguing that it can be bad from
> the point of view of the consumer, because eventually you end up with
> the larger companies
> dominating because of economies of scale.

I simply don't see this as happening. If the small vendors could compete with Microsoft by having better products, I see no reason they can't compete with OSS on the same basis.

>>All the various Linux vendors charge money if you order a package from
>>them. OSS software is only "free" if you don't count the time you would
>>spend to put the various pieces together yourself. You may not be
>>paying for the actual software, but you are paying for their time and
>>effort in making it easy for you to install and use. You will also find
>>that they also sell conventional proprietary software as well. This
>>isn't the "either/or" situation you hear about in the anti-OSS
>>propaganda.

> I agree (and with the point about value and price, which I don't
> consider at all pedantic). In fact I have been very consistent when
> stating my actual beliefs that I believe fundamentally that there is a
> place for both approaches. Both feed off each other to produce a world
> where the price I pay for hardware and software decreases, and the
> capabilities they give me increases. I'm not unhappy with the status
> quo.

I will be quite happy when no one entity dominates the market and no one entity is excluded. The status quo isn't there yet.

>>>And so to the last point, which was to do with why software is
>>>expected to be given away, when other products of industry are not,
>>>which I think is related to a double standard in the way we perceive
>>>their relative values.
>>
>>It costs money (labour) to duplicate automobiles. It costs nothing to
>>duplicate software. That is the essential difference.

> This would be a valid point if on the release of the software, the R&D
> stopped. The cost of software factors in the R&D of future products,
> which is considerable. It's arguable whether the operating margins made
> by Microsoft are excessive, and I don't want to get into that, but if
> the cost of R&D is non-zero, then giving software away is a net cost to
> the producer. Why should we expect it?

I for one don't. I do expect support for my choice of OS. And I'll guarantee that MS is unlikely to go bankrupt simply because they have to accept reasonable margins. They have a long, long, way to go before their legitimate R&D would go unfunded.

> To put it another way, do we expect designer clothes to be free when
> they are made at very low cost by low paid operatives? Of course not. We
> are (I think) persuaded by the 'copiability' and intrinsic low cost of
> digital
> media that because we *can* copy it cheaply, we should have a *right*
> to. It's a dual standard.

Yes, but I can go to Kmart and cover my body. And it wouldn't prevent me from doing what I want to do. Now if they passed legislation that said you have to wear designer clothes of if you weren't welcome anywhere in "off the rack" it would be s similar situation. I can't do my job using Linux, I can't bank using Linux, and my ISP refuses to support me because I use Linux. I can't even buy a machine without buying a copy of Windows (except at WalMart :^)) Many websites are off-limits or broken, I have a hell of a time finding a usable modem or printer, my choice of digital cameras is limited. Until the other day it was technically illegal for me to play DVDs. I can't file my taxes etc., etc., etc. There is simply no logical or technical reason that one company should have such an exclusive impact on my life. Doesn't that smell just a little of monopoly? That's why you can't see a monopoly from the inside. From my perspective it's much more religious persecution than zealotry.

>>>It would be quite possible for GM (or anyone else) to build a
>>>car that never rusts away, or a vacumn cleaner or washing machine
>>>that doesn't fail after 5 years
>>
>>And you can buy that car or vacuum cleaner today. Few people do because
>>they are too expensive.

> Where? Rolls Royce are the only company that comes to mind in terms of
> automobiles, and they were bought out by a mass market competitor, BMW.
> I can think of no company that offers more than a 2 year warranty on
> vacumn cleaners, and nothing more than a 3 year anti corrosion warranty.
> People put up with this (I suspect) partly because it is cool
> to have new stuff from a 'lifestyle' perspective, and partly because in
> absolute terms it doesn't cost all that much. But I would suspect the
> direct
> expenditure on software and computer hardware is much less per capita,
> so why do we get hot under the collar about Microsoft, when we don't
> about General Motors?

General motors isn't trying to buy the highway system to exclude Ford and Daimler Chrysler. Or conspire with the petroleum companies to "cut off their air supply" And you can buy a garage without a chevy in it. GM simply doesn't have the monopoly power to do these things.

I gotta go

Regards

cww

 

On January 14, 2003 09:22 am, Linnell, Tim wrote: <clip>
> You're putting words into my mouth (and perhaps being unnecessarily
> sarcastic).
<clip>

I appologise if some of my statements have offended you.

> What I was arguing overall is that whatever their motivations, the
> existence of Microsoft has been a demonstrable net benefit to the
> software industry. What I would really like is that these interminable
> Microsoft bashing threads move away from a simplistic notion of
> "Microsoft bad, others good" and acknowledge that the truth is
> far more complicated.
<clip>

I think there are really two points I would like to address. The first is that I don't think your suggestion of making software artificially "wear out" would necessarily increase the demand for new software. Since it would decrease the utility of any particular software package, it may actually decrease the demand.

The second point rests on the effects of monopoly. I agree that in particular instances it can be easy to overlook the adverse effects of monopoly (in our examples of petroleum or diamonds) if you happen to like the political or social side effects in particular cases. I might point out though that my own country is probably a net beneficiary of our examples of artificially high oil and diamond prices, so I personally find it a bit hard to worry about their adverse side effects.

However, if we look at monopoly from a strictly theoretical stand point, it is considered to be a bad thing for several reasons. The main one is that it prevents markets from operating efficiently. Maximum economic efficiency occurs when marginal price equals marginal revenue, and this is very unlikely to happen unless competition is allowed to operate. Without competition prices are unable to reflect the true scarcity of resources and to allocate them effectively.

If you would like to have a practical example of the effects of monopoly, consider what happened in eastern Europe under the previous regime. There, most goods and services were produced and sold by monopolies. It was the fact that state ownership of everything inevitably required monopolies, not the state ownership itself which produced the effects. The end result was a vast squandering of resources, which in some places is still going on today as the ownership of many of these monopolies was simply transfered to certain individuals without actually altering the environment in which these enterprises operate.

Let us now look at the computer and software market. An important segment of this market (operating systems) is subject to what is effectively a monopoly and to all the adverse effects which inevitably accompany it. There can be little doubt that Microsoft is extracting monopoly rents, as a look at their financial results shows (see previous postings for details). If they are extracting monopoly rents, then they are by definition depressing market demand for computers and related products below the natural level. I will leave it to you to draw your own conclusions on the effects of an artificially depressed market on the demand for software developers.

An additional problem with monopoly is not just its effects on demand and consumption, but also upon the allocation of investment. When competition is not allowed to direct investment, it is very unlikely that investments will be made in a manner which uses scarce resources effectively. This isn't because the people making investment decisions are "stupid" or "evil". Rather, without an effective market to direct them, they are in no position to *know* what is needed.

The end result is more likely to be a massive squandering of investment resources than any good effect. This may not be readily apparent at the time, since no one is in a position to say what would have happened if the market was allowed to operate normally. However, I believe that economic theory has established this point well enough to accept it without having to "predict" what would have happened in a free market. It is precisely the fact that we *cannot* reliably predict the best course which is why efficient markets are necessary.

I hope the above has put the issue on a more scientific basis. Note that none of the arguments needs to invoke "hate" or "evil" to seriously question whether a net benefit exists.

> I've already dealt with the question of disappearing commercial
> software. It *is* going in many areas, and as I pointed out, small
> automation vendors are unlikely to be able to afford the development
> cost of good tools because they are expected to be given away. Big
> companies can use loss leaders (cf supermarkets); small companies (cf
> corner shops) can't. I am *not* arguing that
> OSS is all bad, but rather that it can be not all good in rather
> surprising and unforeseen ways.
<clip>

I assume that you are referring to the situation in the automation field? Yet this appears to be precisely the area where OSS has had the least penetration. The "loss leaders" from big companies which you refer to are conventional closed source software. People were asking for cheap or free PLC programming software long before they heard of OSS.

The "free" software which most people are exposed to isn't OSS. It is conventional closed source software which is "bundled" with another product (computer, scanner, software, etc.). The problem you are describing (loss leaders) seems to be a form of bundling, not OSS. Since Microsoft practices bundling quite extensively as part of their monopoly. I don't see why you would condem bundling on one hand, while expressing sympathy with the arch bundler on the other. Surely you should either welcome "free" (bundled) software, or else withdraw your sympathy for the bundler.

--

************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************

 

I should, I think, point out that I was not advocating 'software rust' as a technique, but pointing out that this is what MS, Intel (and others) are attempting to create a churn in markets that would otherwise be stagnant. What I'm about here is understanding the drivers behind their actions in terms that are not about 'hate' (and please note the original title of this thread, which specifically uses this term, and to which I am reacting - perhaps this has been forgotten?).

>Let us now look at the computer and software market. An important segment
>of this market (operating systems) is subject to what is effectively a
>monopoly and to all the adverse effects which inevitably accompany it.
>There can be little doubt that Microsoft is extracting monopoly rents, as
>a look at their financial results shows (see previous postings for
>details). If they are extracting monopoly rents, then they are by
>definition depressing market demand for computers and related products
>below the natural level. I will leave it to you to draw your own
>conclusions on the effects of an artificially depressed market on the
>demand for software developers.

Yet usage of computer technology increases exponentially everywhere, and prices drop very rapidly; there are no signs I can see of anything approaching drop off in demand for software developers. I think I would argue that the key benefit of a near monopoly O/S is to reduce costs elsewhere in the computing industry by dint of having a single target to aim at. One of the things the Romans gave us for our taxes and tributes was common infrastructure, and Windows provides an acceptable common infrastructure.

All I am saying, is give Gates a chance.

Cheers

Tim

 

> All I am saying, is give Gates a chance.

We did.

He blew it.

Many times and how many years does it take before you'll be able to see it?

Mark

Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the company.

 

Yeah, it's kinda like the railroads. No one can argue that they didn't open up vast tracts for expansion and and enable commerce by bringing goods to market and brought about much that was good for the country. But that doesn't mean that there weren't robber barons, massive exploitation and blatent abuse of monopolies. And, if they had their way, we would have no highways or airlines. And life would be very difficult away from the tracks. Gates is having his way. Far more than any other monopolist could manage. And we are being railroaded. Where do you want to go today? You can go anyplace as long as it's on the tracks. :^) Still lotsa steel and steam fans around.

Regards

cww

 

>> All I am saying, is give Gates a chance.
>
>We did.
>
>He blew it.
>
>Many times and how many years does it take before you'll be able to see
>it?

Well, whatever we think of him now, Gates will certainly be remembered 100 years hence as one of the two or three most significant figures in the development of the software and personal computer industry. Indeed, he would have been had he only produced MS-Basic.

I can see several instances where Microsoft have sailed close to the wind in terms of commercial practices, and have muscled competitors out of the market - I argued for the existence of Microsoft having been a net benefit, not a procession of saintly acts.

Yet you can say the same about almost any large US or multi-national conglomerate. On any rational moral continuum there are plenty far worse than Microsoft. We don't need to get anyway near the Enrons of the world to find these - tobacco companies targeting carcinogenic product at new markets amongst our children or in the the third world, oil and automobile companies systematically shouting down evidence of global warming, textile companies employing sweatshop labour; worse - let's invoke spectres such as Bhopal, the Exxon Valdez. These sorts of things actually matter, and might be a reason to hate a company or an individual figurehead. The software running on your desktop isn't, by and large.

I suppose what I'm asking for - not in any great expectation, I have to say - is a slightly more shaded debate on this sort of thing than we tend to get from the kind of article invoked in the original title of this thread, and the usual suspects who steam in daily with what is I believe known in the OSS community as 'guerrilla marketing'. Sadly, it's in my nature that if someone turns up on my doorstep and tells me what I should believe, I will tend to argue even if I started off believing it in the first place ;-). And all the more so if a mob turns up.

This is the last piece I'll post on this, as I've repeated my arguments three times; always a good place to stop in Internet debate(*). In summary, I've raised a number of points - that MS has produced many good pieces of software that stand on their own merit; that the existence of a common target O/S has benefitted everyone (except the proponents of the competing UNIX standards in the mid 80s); that MS's increasingly bizarre and misguided behaviour is a consequence of its inability to grow its core markets further or to find new ones, and hence to grow at all, and does not stem from systemic evil intent; that free software is not necessarily good for the consumer and that its stated benefits are often more theoretical than practical; that those who hate Microsoft should examine the beam in their own eye. This is a perfectly rational set of arguments to set beside those of the original article "Why I Hate Microsoft", and I stand by their integrity, even if they are not totally the opinions I hold myself.

Hatred is a strong emotion. Let's use it wisely.

Cheers

Tim

*This is Linnell's first law of Internet discourse. The second is that you always get sufficiently p**** off by a reply to the final message to add in one further angry retort, that this is always a mistake, but that you will do it nonetheless. So apologies in advance.

 

Even I wouldn't say that I hate Microsoft or BG. My objections aren't very emotional in nature, mostly technical and legal. I am a bit dissappointed with the apathy of the users though.

Regards

cww

 

> Well, whatever we think of him now, Gates will certainly be remembered
> 100 years hence as one of the two or three most significant figures in
> the development of the software and personal computer
> industry. Indeed,
> he would have been had he only produced MS-Basic.

True. But that doesn't make it OK for him to do whatever he feels like now. Doing good in the past does not give one a free pass in the future.

> I can see several instances where Microsoft have sailed close to the
> wind in terms of commercial practices, and have muscled
> competitors out
> of the market - I argued for the existence of Microsoft having been a
> net benefit, not a procession of saintly acts.

Even if you are right, what they are doing wrong now is still wrong.

> Yet you can say the same about almost any large US or multi-national
> conglomerate. On any rational moral continuum there are
> plenty far worse
> than Microsoft.

There are murders out there too, but that doesn't mean we should pat the rapists on the back and say its OK, you didn't kill anyone.

> This is the last piece I'll post on this, as I've repeated my
> arguments
> three times; always a good place to stop in Internet debate(*).

I'll see if I can't refute them one more time(**).

I must have missed them from some of your previous posts. Either that or you have stated them more eloquently here.

> In summary, I've raised a number of points - that
> MS has produced many good pieces of software that stand on their own merit;

Seems to be reasonable.

> that the existence of a common target O/S has benefitted everyone
> (except the proponents of the competing UNIX standards in the mid 80s);

True, but the existence of a common target O/S has also hurt everyone as it stifled innovation.

> that MS's increasingly bizarre and misguided behaviour is a
> consequence of its inability to grow its core markets further or
> to find new ones, and hence to grow at all, and does not stem from
> systemic evil intent;

The intent may not be evil, but the effect can be. Many people do evil things, not necessarily because they want to be evil.

> that free software is not necessarily good for the consumer and that
> its stated benefits are often more theoretical than practical;

While technically true, this statement has enough weasel words in it that it is irrelevant to the discussion.

> that those who hate Microsoft should examine the beam in their own eye.

I agree

> This is a perfectly rational set of arguments to set beside those of
> the original article "Why I Hate Microsoft", and I stand by their
> integrity, even if they are not totally the opinions I hold myself.

You seem to have left out your irrational conclusion. The one where you take the position of the devils advocate and say Microsoft is (still) good, and we should be happy to be stuck under their monopolistic controls.

> Hatred is a strong emotion. Let's use it wisely.
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
> *This is Linnell's first law of Internet discourse. The second is that
> you always get sufficiently p**** off by a reply to the final
> message to
> add in one further angry retort, that this is always a
> mistake, but that
> you will do it nonetheless. So apologies in advance.

** I'm always glad to help.

Mark Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the company.

 

I don't think Gates is having his way. Companies don't start issuing dividends unless they are concerned about capital growth. MS are having problems selling Windows against Linux into server markets which is probably their best bet for any sort of growth. Then as Michael Griffin pointed out a couple of weeks ago, they are losing money in all except their cash cow products, which they're frantically overmilking to the point where people are becoming sufficiently irritated to look elsewhere, and having highly limited success establishing themselves in new markets.

So to follow your analogy, we will see - we are seeing - planes and automobiles, as Microsoft runs out of steam, but thank the railways for instilling the taste for travelling in the first place. Given that there is always a downside, is it better the railways existed than not? My advice is to stop hating Microsoft, look at what they did well, then do it better. It won't be easy.

Or to follow my analogy (with thanks to http://graphicszone.net/monty_python/scripts/Life_of_Brian/10.htm ):

REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education,
wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

XERXES: Brought peace.
REG: Oh. Peace? Shut up!
(seems like good advice - I will).

Tim

 

Tim Linnell:
> Well, whatever we think of him now, Gates will certainly be remembered
> 100 years hence as one of the two or three most significant figures in
> the development of the software and personal computer industry.
> Indeed, he would have been had he only produced MS-Basic.

For which he has been amply compensated, and more.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools