Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 16:03:04 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: "Giorgos Keramidas" <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> Cc: <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Message-ID: <000a01bf2efc$ca2434f0$021d85d1@youwant.to> In-Reply-To: <861z9tp59k.fsf@localhost.hell.gr>
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. > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > 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. 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? > > 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. > 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. > > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > > 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. > > 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. Eventually the market will learn. Windows will be irrelevant some day no matter what MS does. DS 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?000a01bf2efc$ca2434f0$021d85d1>