Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 03:37:52 -0600 (CST) From: Erick White <erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us> To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> Cc: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.991115023257.20494E-100000@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us> In-Reply-To: <000a01bf2efc$ca2434f0$021d85d1@youwant.to>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> writes: > > > > > > Gawd's sake what do you mean by using the word `superior' > > here, because > > > > I was assuming technical superiority is the goal. > > ... > > > You were assuming technical superiority is the goal of what? > > > > Of a company trying to produce competent software that will let it share > > some part of the market with others. > > Actually, technical superiority is generally a means to an end. That end is > usually meeting some market niche. All the technical superiority in the > world won't sell a product if it doesn't provide some group of people > something that they at least think they need. > > > > Yes, the limit should be what the consumer does not want. Not even > > > Microsoft can make a consumer buy something they don't want. And not > > > even the government should stop Microsoft from making and selling what > > > consumers want. > > > > This is certainly true. The limit is always what the consumer wants. > > However, raising the limit with marketing should not be that hard. The > > whole purpose of marketing is to actually /tell/ the consumer what he > > wants, which creates a logical loop in that previous argument. > > This is correct, but not the whole picture. Marketing has a large number of > goals. Certainly changing demand is one of them, but it's only rarely the > primary goal. Most marketing has as its primary goals increasing awareness > of the company and shifting brand preferences. They Key thing here is, that if they know of brand X and that it does such and such, and they don't know that brand y has the same options and actually out performs brand X then guess what? What you have is what is already being said, if they only know brand X exists and that it fits their needs, or should I say their percieved needs, Percieved being the key words here, then they go with brand X. You see they show you only enough to let you think that it is the only thing out there to use even though it might be second rate as far as features or options that are actually needed. Largely your letting them know only about your options if your welling something, and relying ONLY on your name that they know to try to outsell something, and well, the more money you have gotten in the past, the more you can make it stick out that your there, and hide the facts, as has happened in so many markets today. It is true this is not ethical, but it is unfortunately what many people including M$ has done. People usualy though turn a blind eye. > > > Oh and one more thing, unless I am totally wrong here, any company can > > make some consumers buys something that they don't _need_ by making them > > think that they _want_ to buy it. This is the idea behind commercials > > and other ways of advertising. > > This is the hard way to sell something. It's much easier to simply convince > your customers that you meet a need they know they have. But, yes, you can > sell something simply by convincing people they want it. Basically, what it > comes down to is, how stupid do you think people are? > > But the risk is that you will assume stupidity too quickly. People do not > buy Windows because they are stupid. > > T. J. Rodgers, the CEO of Cypress Semiconductor said, "Despite my Stanford > Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, > it seems I was duped into buying 3,000 copies of Microsoft Windows by crafty > Bill Gates." I think it's clear how ridiculous that sounds. Well not as rediculous as you make it out to be. This is why. As I Mentioned above, when you only know about one product that at the time you percieve to be your only solution all though it doesn't meet all your criteria, then you buy it. Even Ph.D.'s like this can be dooped becouse of an enforced illusion. Just having a PhD does not limit one to being infallible or undupeable as you put it. My college Professors will be the first to tell you that all PHD stands for is well a BS degree... we all know what BS is, a MS Degree is more of the same, and a PHD is just piled Higher and deeper. Not saying people are stupid, I am saying they don't in general have all the information to make an informed conclusion based on all the facts. I am sure David, that you, like almost al of us, have fallen into a snare similar to this. > > > > And the nice thing for developers targetting Windows 98 and later > > > operating systems is that they can rely on those services being there > > > and use them. This is a benefit for the same reason that integrating > > > memory management into the operating system is a benefit. > > > > Memory management works transparently, without the programmer ever being > > in the need to tweak it, in order to do simple tasks. > > I guess you've never designed high-capacity servers. You have to work > intimately with memory management to avoid such problems as fragmentation > and leakage. > > > However, all > > other interfaces present in the system have to be documented properly, > > so that one does not find that IE uses the OpenWindowFancy() call of a > > system .dll, which seems pretty much undocumented in your system > > manuals. This will not let those `other' developers write their own > > programs. > > Well, tough. If Microsoft didn't want any third-party Windows programs to > exist, that would be their right. It would make a lousy product though. > > However, one argument that I do find interesting is that Microsoft is > committing fraud by claiming (at least implicitly) that the Windows platform > is open to development from all on some sort of equal basis when it actually > is not. Absent evidence of such a claim, however, Microsoft's copyright > rights would allow it to completely close off the Windows platform if they > wanted to. They hold copyright to the API. Yes all though Microsoft could do that, there are certain things that even it is required to go by. Just like the OSI model and operability of networks. What your selling is not just your copyright, but the ideal that your software is going to help already instituted network, and company layout. Yes your right in the legality of such a claim. They could close it off, but diliberately changing something just to squash the compitition is what is on trial in this case. Microsoft has strong armed others to do what it has wanted to, with threats and the like, and by crushing ones compitition and leaving only your version... isn't that what is reffered to as a MONOPOLY? I was born at night boys, and I am sure you were too, but I garuntee you neigther of us was born last night, and not in any night too recently, so if you look at it this way, if the only file share on such and such an architechture is yours, then you hold a MONOPOLY! So you see while they are within their rights in one aspect, that aspect does something that crosses another right that they do not have, and are breaking. > > > What about your argument against browser integration doesn't apply to > > > disk compression integration? Or memory management integration? Or GUI > > > integration? (Actually, GUI integration is something that I can't > > > stand. But I'm not going to tell Microsoft how to design their > > > products.) > > > > Memory management is a characteristic of an operating system at the > > "system" level. Filesystems too. Providing transparent encryption of > > filesystem operations can be considered as a `feature' of a filesystem, > > which is already in the "system" level. > > Yes, and now Windows 98 provides broswing at the system level. This is what > integration means. All of these things can be done at the system level but > don't have to be. > > > However, one something is in the application level, i.e. programs like > > the browser, the word processor, the mail reader, hell even the mail > > transfer agent, it is no longer part of the OS. > > The line is very blurry. Where is command.com on MSDOS? Where is the > defragmenter in Windows 98? Where is FreeBSD's 'sysctl'? Do you really want > the government making the decision about what's part of an operating system > and what isn't? I don't even think real technical experts can do it. Well here let me ask everyone this. Your picking out small portions of internal working code thake make up the root of the OS, this is not what their talking about. Although I fear what they might do with the company as in taking out certain features of the OS that un the industry we rely on weather we want to or not. I think they will cut it up as not the operating system, but the extra apps that others offer also, like browsers and let one choose, we are creatures of choice, not robots! Most likely they will devide Microsoft up, should the so descide by means of Internet access, like maybe MSN and the OS and something else, I however do not want to see them take out networking support and put it in another package... Networking can already show us some real fun, much less having to by two different products just to have it run in your network. The judge seems to be well infromed in some areas and not as much in others, but ultimately, at this point it is in his hands. And for further enlightenment the line is only blurry in certain aspects... > > For instance, you can use X11 on Linux and/or FreeBSD. But that does > > not make it mandatory to install X11 on all Linux installations. It > > just adds to your `abilities'. I would certainly like to see that level > > of fine-grained choise in Windows too. Although it's not the only > > design issue that makes me shy away from Windows, having a descent way > > of working at them without the `integrated' GUI would really make me a > > lot happier about them. > > Personally, I find that the absence of that choice has value. One reason > that it's hard to design for the Linux platform is you have no clue what is > going to be there. You can't link to the X11 libraries because they may not > exist. Ditto for FreeBSD. Again I state that humans are creatures of free will and choice, absence of choice never has value, I will agree with you there should be defaults, but the great thing about choice is this gives even you the choice to have it be all bland, look like one thing or another, or include one thing or another. Good coders are not going to back away from a challenge if a program is well written.. *mumbles about some other OS's that arn't....* then your going to make contigency plans if what your looking for in design is not there. All falls back to basics friends and neighbors. > > I also accept that choice has value. It would be absurd to say it doesn't. > > So the question becomes, how much choice is the right amount of choice? And > who should make that decision? The right amount of choice is based on the individual. How much is right and how much is not. Default choices for those that are use to one way perhaps, and configureable or more to those of us who want to delve deeper, and if you think about it, at some point most people want to delve a little deeper. > > > > When you're considering whether the cost of Windows is reasonable or > > > not, you have to compare it to other commercial operating > > > systems. Microsoft had no means of enlisting thousands of people to > > > work on Windows for them at no charge. > > > > When as an engineer I am called to offer a solution, why is it important > > to limit myself to commercial only solutions? I don't seem to follow > > your reasoning here. > > Read it over until you get it. The question is, is the cost of Windows > unsually high because Microsoft enjoys a monopoly position? > > When you are dealing with an anti-trust case, you are looking to find, and > fix, monopoly harm. The theory is that a monopoly is capable of doing things > that a more competitive market would not allow. The three chief types of > monopoly harm are reduced quality, reduced output, and increased prices. > > The part that I was talking about was increased prices. So the question is, > is the price of Windows high because Microsoft enjoys a monopoly position > and could charge whatever it wants. And my answer was, no, because the price > of Windows is reasonable considering the effort expended to develop it, > market it, maintain it, support it, and research future developments. Well you brought it up, reduced output, and reduced quality, a little extra time and more effort in programming can make all the difference between well written and operating programs and barely acceptable junk. What you don't realize is also this. Microsft has not come up with something truely inovative in a long time. Everything is stolen from elsewhere. You might not like the word stolen, then think permenantly borrowed. When you have a larger money base, then you can include for free in your operating system what makes another companies bread and butter. You see the price they are paying for is actually going to including programs others came up with, to put them out of buissness, thus another example of making yours the only version and driving another out of buissness... and thus, you got it a MONOPOLY! > > About the enlistment now, opening the source is one way. So Microsoft > > actually *has* the means to enlist all those developing on Windows now, > > they are just too blind to see it. > > You might be right. Microsoft might actually enjoy greater > success in the market by being freer with its source. But under US > Copyright law, and international law, that is its exclusive decision to > make. Microsoft can do whatever it wants to with its intellectual > property. Again another half truth. It can do whatever it wants with its intelectual property under the already existing laws that it has used so much to its advantage till now. It is not like they didn't ethicaly already know it was wrong to do what they did, and it is not like the goverment suddently descided, "Lets pull this law out of our butt and force it, and not tell anyone." No, the very laws it has used so extensively were there just as well as the ones it broke. If ya don't wanna get burned... keep your nose outta tha fire! IN other words, they knew full well this entire time, it is nothing that snuck up on them. > > > However, many a time Microsoft decided to change the > SMB protocol, for > > > no apparent reason. The changes were in the key > used to authenticate > > > oneself, but they did not seem to provide for > better security (not > > > larger keys, just different and it has always > been with proprietary > > > protocols, not documented anywhere). They > were there > obviously in order > > > to make Samba unusable. This is > not what I usually call `better' when > > > I'm talking about a system > in general. > > > > How did Microsoft's changes hurt samba? It was > still doing exactly > > what it was designed to do. It simply no longer > interoperated with > > Microsoft's operating systems. This hurts > Microsoft's operating > > systems as much or more than it hurts samba. > > > Yes and no. Samba still worked. Microsoft's neighborhood still > worked, > they just did not interoperate well with each other. By > making just the > number of changes to be incompatible, you can bet on > many people buying > the crap that goes like "our systems always > interoperate well with each > other, theirs are just a heap of bull -- > so use only our systems, be > happy and content that we provide you with > all this interoperability." > Microsoft has never used my exact words, > but the basic meaning most of > the time is right there. > > And that is their right. No one should be forced to have their product > interoperate in a way they do not want. This is a pretty fundamental > copyrith right. If you wrote "The Phantom of the Opera" and didn't want it > bundled with "Debby Does the Doghouse, Part 3", that would be your right. If > those rights didn't exist, the GPL wouldn't exist. > > If Microsoft wants to hurt themselves by being incompatible, that's their > right. You would only have a sensible claim against them if you could show > some sort of implied promise to interoperate. Microsoft has done the > converse (until recently) stating explicitly that they have no intention to > interoperate with others -- as you stated. They paint the illusion and actually say that they are compatible and interoperable. What they mean is with their own operating system! > > > Microsoft did not ask for samba. Microsoft does not have to suffer > > > samba if they don't want to. If they want their operating systems not > > > to interoperate with other operating systems, that is their right. > > > > By using the word "suffer" you don't mean of course that Samba is > > getting _so_ good that Microsoft is in agony and all that... > > I mean that Microsoft doesn't have to interoperate with Samba if they don't > want to. Unless they made some sort of agreement that requires them to. If > Microsoft wants to quarrantine Windows, they can do that. If you want > Microsoft to do otherwise, you can contract for them to do so or don't buy > their products. > > > Anyway, Digital, Sun, SCO, or anybody else did not ask for Linux or > > FreeBSD either. That does not mean that they should not follow any of > > those dreaded POSIX standards which linux and freebsd strive to > > follow... > > Right. They choose to follow those standards because they value > interoperability. And that's great. I much prefer to deal with such > companies. But surely it's their right to be incompatible if they choose to, > right? So long as they don't lie about it or mislead their customers. Standards are set for reasons. Not necissarly for interoperability, but becouse of laws, and regulations. The IEEE governs many standards on the electronic level many of their regulations others HAVE to comply with, so not all is unteroperability. And Microsoft would have the greatest to gain from following these, but they don't instead they seak to crush. If your only choice of ICE CREAM is Vanilla and they don't claim to have other flavors... is it really a choice? > > > I develop products all that time that do not interoperate with > > > products developed by other companies. This is a deliberate design > > > decision. Or do you not believe that companies have the right to > > > develop and use proprietary protocols and technologies? Is this going > > > to degenerate into 'information wants to be free'? > > > > Developing products that do not interoperate, as you said above, is a > > hurt to both the users and you, the developer. I can only add to this > > that you have every right to make a decision of your own, and I will > > support your right to choose to do so, even if I disagree with your > > choise. > > Well, the point is, why should you give technology away for free? Being > able to interoperate with Windows file sharing has value, and Microsoft > shouldn't have to give that to the Samba team for nothing. They (eventually) > realized that they benefit from such interoperability. Nor should they hide it or cause a direct harm to something that posses it no real harm. That only expands its abilities. > > > > Lower prices are not a characteristic of Microsoft, unless > > you've never > > > > actually payed for your copy of Windows and Office; but > > that's probably > > > > something that does not conform with what Microsoft wants you to do. > > > > > > That's just not true. Are you saying this for any particular reason? > > > Do you really believe it? Would any facts help, or is your mind > > > already closed. > > > > My mind is never closed. I am always open to suggestions. But I have > > yet to see a Windows release priced less than FreeBSD or any other > > Free*nix clone. But, I know, I know... Free*nix is not commercial. > > You will never see a commercial product cheaper than a free product. What you need to realize though is when a "free" product is better than a comercial one, that should throw some flags. Were not asking it nessicarly to be free, but to be priced reasonably. If the "Free" product has the same good qualities, then don't you think that it is a little less reasonable to charge so much for something that you have assimilated from others and crushed them. The more you look at it, if you look closely at it. M$ is really just like the borg. > > > Here's a quotation from Stan Liebowitz: > > > > Nice stuff, can I find more of that online somewhere? > > There's some at http://youknow.youwant.to/ms > > > > Sure. But I've had those same problems with Linux. (Never with > > > FreeBSD, but I think that's just been luck so far) > > > > The problems, i.e. tech support on expensive and not so effective phone > > lines, just don't exist with FreeBSD & Linux. > > I was more referring to your hardware compatability problems. FreeBSD and > Linux generally have far better support than Microsoft could ever hope for. > > > I can not recall the > > year, I think it was the last one, when Linux received some award for > > it's support (mind you, no real company does the support, just mailing > > lists, irc channels, web pages, etc.) > > That shows some real open mindedness on the part of whoever gave that > award. I have never had a complex, technical Linux or FreeBSD question that > I couldn't get ten answers to within 3 hours. I still agonize over NT > questions I could probably resolve in 20 seconds if I could look at the > source. Maybe and maybe not, if you looked at the source then you might end up more confused or angry when you realize how it should of worked. :) > Eventually the market will learn. Windows will be irrelevant some day no > matter what MS does. > > DS AMEN TO THAT Your Friendly Neighborhood UNIX Advocate: Erick > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.3.96.991115023257.20494E-100000>