Topic: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source  (Read 8292 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lepton

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1620
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2005, 01:03:26 pm »
I'm sorry but I'd rather see standardization of operating systems under a public and open process rather than a cabal of multibillion dollar companies.  Call me crazy but I think I know who will have the public's interests in mind.


System Specs:

Dell Dimension E521
AMD64x2 5000+
2G DDR2 RAM
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB GDDR3
250GB SATA HD

Offline Mr_Tricorder

  • 3D modeler /animator
  • Hot and Spicy
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1040
  • Gender: Male
  • Trekkie at Large
    • My myspace page
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2005, 02:17:58 pm »
I'm sorry but I'd rather see standardization of operating systems under a public and open process rather than a cabal of multibillion dollar companies.  Call me crazy but I think I know who will have the public's interests in mind.
agreed.   :goodpost:

Offline FMMonty

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1273
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2005, 02:40:25 pm »
I'm sorry but I'd rather see standardization of operating systems under a public and open process rather than a cabal of multibillion dollar companies.  Call me crazy but I think I know who will have the public's interests in mind.

Actually a corp that doesn't have the customers interests at heart will soon be bankrupt.  Yes corporations are trying to make money, aren't we all.  However if they do that by shafting their customer base they will soon be out of customers.

Open source has the OS community to answer to.  Business has the customer to answer to.  Both probably don't do a great job, however you can sue a business that puts out a shoddy product :)
Comment is free, but facts are sacred.
 C. P. Scott

Offline Lepton

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1620
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2005, 04:47:27 pm »
Not when they have a monopoly, right?  We're talking about Microsoft here.  Their products are flawed.  One could lay the entire monetary losses due to internet security issues at their doorstep if one were so inclined.  Be that as it may, there is no other acknowledged OS option in the market besides Mac and they are way too proprietary and costly for most people.  That leaves MS with a virtual monopoly.  That they have been sued to that effect should suggest to anyone how responsible they need to be to customer concerns.

I also believe that we will see MS getting clobbered in the console market where they do not have a monopoly when the PS3 is released, unless of course they put the screws to game developers which I do not put beyond Gates.


System Specs:

Dell Dimension E521
AMD64x2 5000+
2G DDR2 RAM
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB GDDR3
250GB SATA HD

Offline FMMonty

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1273
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #24 on: October 31, 2005, 05:18:28 pm »
Microsoft don't have a monopoly, however people aren't willing to use the competition.  That speaks more about them, especially when the competition is free.

Internet security issues would only be Microsofts fault if they failed to fix holes, something they don't do.  In fact they are attacked far more, yet they identify and fix holes much faster than the open source people do.  Also I wouldn't call their products flawed, they do the job they are expected to do quite well, which is why we use them.  I'd much rather Office 2003 than the new open office.

It just isn't possible to build a physical bank that can't be robbed, so why would we expect computer systems to be any better?

Comment is free, but facts are sacred.
 C. P. Scott

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12504
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #25 on: October 31, 2005, 06:25:08 pm »
Microsoft don't have a monopoly


The courts of a number of countries disagree with you.  The U.S.A., E.U. and South Korea to name 3 off the top of my head.

Actually Microsoft is currently in trouble over violating the U.S. settlement.

Link to full article

Quote
Under the program Microsoft had proposed, device makers that included a CD with Windows Media Player and other software would have had to agree not to include any other software, including rival media players.


Using that monopoly power illegally again.  Caught and shut down before it went to far again.
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline FMMonty

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1273
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2005, 05:45:27 am »
Microsoft don't have a monopoly


The courts of a number of countries disagree with you.  The U.S.A., E.U. and South Korea to name 3 off the top of my head.


How can they have a monopoly when there are other products that people can use?

They decided it was a monopoly because people buy computers to run applications, and people write applications for Windows.  The fact that Microsoft writes applications for non windows products is ignored.  That people don't want to use alternatives is not Microsofts fault.

It is a fake definition of monopoly. 

Actually Microsoft is currently in trouble over violating the U.S. settlement.

Link to full article

Quote
Under the program Microsoft had proposed, device makers that included a CD with Windows Media Player and other software would have had to agree not to include any other software, including rival media players.


Using that monopoly power illegally again.  Caught and shut down before it went to far again.


I don't see anything wrong with that.  Why shouldn't they be able to say how their product is distributed?
Comment is free, but facts are sacred.
 C. P. Scott

Offline Javora

  • America for Americans first.
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2969
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2005, 06:47:46 am »
When it come to Windows Media Player and monopoly issue I'm treading on unstable ground since I'm really not sure and don't have a lot of background information.  Given that, off the top of my head I am leaning toward Nemesis line of thinking here.  Since Windows Media Player comes included with every Windows CD.  The public won't go out and look for a Media Player since they already have one loaded on their system.  The argument has to rely on a line of thinking that the general public is lazy and won't look for a Media Player if they don't have to, IMHO that line of thinking has some merit.  Now if Microsoft willingly or is forced to strip Windows Media Player out of the OS and people go to the Microsoft web site and download the program anyway.  Then these other Media Player companies doesn't have a leg to stand on because the playing field would have been leveled.

That is the way I see it anyway, but if there is a flaw in my reasoning by all means point it out.

Offline FMMonty

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1273
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2005, 10:53:42 am »
When it come to Windows Media Player and monopoly issue I'm treading on unstable ground since I'm really not sure and don't have a lot of background information.  Given that, off the top of my head I am leaning toward Nemesis line of thinking here.  Since Windows Media Player comes included with every Windows CD.  The public won't go out and look for a Media Player since they already have one loaded on their system.  The argument has to rely on a line of thinking that the general public is lazy and won't look for a Media Player if they don't have to, IMHO that line of thinking has some merit.  Now if Microsoft willingly or is forced to strip Windows Media Player out of the OS and people go to the Microsoft web site and download the program anyway.  Then these other Media Player companies doesn't have a leg to stand on because the playing field would have been leveled.

That is the way I see it anyway, but if there is a flaw in my reasoning by all means point it out.


Hehe, so if I sell steering wheels and whine enough then Ford have to remove all of their steering wheels and let the customer choose which one to buy?
Comment is free, but facts are sacred.
 C. P. Scott

Offline Dracho

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 18289
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #29 on: November 01, 2005, 11:07:36 am »
I'd like cheese on my Whopper. 

I'm sorry sir, but the cheese shops do not allow us to put cheese on your whopper for you, because we might not use the cheese most suitable for you.  Please take your whopper down he street and you can select a fine cheese from any vendor you choose.

Now.. about that soda...
The worst enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan.  - Karl von Clausewitz

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12504
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #30 on: November 01, 2005, 09:12:43 pm »
FMMonty do you remember the Stac Electronics case?  It exemplifies the problem with Microsoft.

Stac created a diskcompression program for DOS/Windows called Stacker. 

Digital Research went to them and licenced it for DR DOS. 

IBM went to them and licensed it for PC DOS. 

Microsoft went to them and attempted to dictate terms that were destructive to Stac.  Stac said no.  Microsoft created a competitor that violated patents held by Stac.  Stac warned them of the violation and were blown off.  Stac took them to court for patent violation.  Microsoft was forced by the court to remove the program, they did and created a new version that did not violate the patents (no problem with that).  When they released the new version they also changed DOS so that Stacker could not be loaded with the old method.  The new method was undocumented and the EULA included a clause forbidding reverse engineering.  Stac reverse engineered it anyhow.  Microsoft sued and the EULA was held to be invalid in that area.  Stac won.  Stac does not exist any more.  Who really won?

By changing DOS to remove the ability of Stac to load their program Microsoft violated anti-trust laws.  Microsoft by changing DOS and putting that EULA clause in was eliminating the ability of Stac to sell their product to 90% of the market so that Microsoft could control that market.  Microsoft didn't win by making a better product.  They won by using the control of the dominant OS to block a competitor from being in the market.  They won by forcing that smaller competitor to expend their profits in court rather than on legitimate competition.

The ability to do that to a competitor makes Microsoft a monopoly under the lawDoing it makes it an abusive monopoly and guilty of illegal acts.

When Microsoft says you can't sell our products if you sell our competitors product that is a violation of the law.  When Microsoft says if you sell our competitors product you must still pay us (making the competitors cost artificially high and non competitive) they violate the law.  They have done both of these and been ordered by the courts to not do so because it is an illegal abuse of a monopoly position.
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline Lepton

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1620
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #31 on: November 02, 2005, 02:24:21 am »
There is no reasoning with Monty.  Might as well not bother.  He seems to be an apologist for Microsoft despite its well-earned negative public reputation and numerous monopoly lawsuits.

He makes any number of good points however they are semantic arguments at best.  When one is sued for being a monopoly and is forced to settle by national governments to that effect, you'd best believe in the court of law and public opinion that MS is a monopoly.


System Specs:

Dell Dimension E521
AMD64x2 5000+
2G DDR2 RAM
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB GDDR3
250GB SATA HD

Offline FMMonty

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1273
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #32 on: November 02, 2005, 03:55:06 am »
FMMonty do you remember the Stac Electronics case?  It exemplifies the problem with Microsoft.

Stac created a diskcompression program for DOS/Windows called Stacker. 

Digital Research went to them and licenced it for DR DOS. 

IBM went to them and licensed it for PC DOS. 

Microsoft went to them and attempted to dictate terms that were destructive to Stac.  Stac said no.  Microsoft created a competitor that violated patents held by Stac.  Stac warned them of the violation and were blown off.  Stac took them to court for patent violation.  Microsoft was forced by the court to remove the program, they did and created a new version that did not violate the patents (no problem with that).  When they released the new version they also changed DOS so that Stacker could not be loaded with the old method.  The new method was undocumented and the EULA included a clause forbidding reverse engineering.  Stac reverse engineered it anyhow.  Microsoft sued and the EULA was held to be invalid in that area.  Stac won.  Stac does not exist any more.  Who really won?

This is an exact example of unacceptable practice, so you'd think.  However what Stac did is purchase a software patent from a British company called Ferranti and used that patent to sue Microsoft.  Patent 4,701,475.  This is common in software these days, since patent fishing works very well.

You also didn't mention that Stac lost the reverse engineering case and had to pay Microsoft 13.7 Million for illegally ripping off their doublespace preloading system, or that they had been given an advance copy of the new DOS 6, allowing them to prepare their product for the changes that were taking place.

Yes Microsoft did try to destroy Stac, however what actually destroyed them was cheap harddrives, and the fact that every operating system had bundled disc compression (MS were the last company to do so).

By changing DOS to remove the ability of Stac to load their program Microsoft violated anti-trust laws.  Microsoft by changing DOS and putting that EULA clause in was eliminating the ability of Stac to sell their product to 90% of the market so that Microsoft could control that market.  Microsoft didn't win by making a better product.  They won by using the control of the dominant OS to block a competitor from being in the market.  They won by forcing that smaller competitor to expend their profits in court rather than on legitimate competition.

Microsoft didn't change DOS and refuse to allow Stac to reverse engineer their product, they countersued stac for using thousands of lines of Microsoft code, and won.

The ability to do that to a competitor makes Microsoft a monopoly under the lawDoing it makes it an abusive monopoly and guilty of illegal acts.

When Microsoft says you can't sell our products if you sell our competitors product that is a violation of the law.  When Microsoft says if you sell our competitors product you must still pay us (making the competitors cost artificially high and non competitive) they violate the law.  They have done both of these and been ordered by the courts to not do so because it is an illegal abuse of a monopoly position.

People often sign exclusive deals to get better prices.  However I agree that it is harmful to your competition to say if you sell bobs you can't sell ours. Why should Microsoft want to encourage competition?

This Marxist idea that we should regulate businesses to stop them being successful is silly.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2005, 04:38:50 am by FMMonty NCC 2nd'3'15'18'16'19 »
Comment is free, but facts are sacred.
 C. P. Scott

Offline FMMonty

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1273
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #33 on: November 02, 2005, 04:13:13 am »
There is no reasoning with Monty.  Might as well not bother.  He seems to be an apologist for Microsoft despite its well-earned negative public reputation and numerous monopoly lawsuits.

I do apologise for not being an unquestioning Microsoft hater.  I will immediately report for brainwashing and stop holding unreasonable opinions...

He makes any number of good points however they are semantic arguments at best.  When one is sued for being a monopoly and is forced to settle by national governments to that effect, you'd best believe in the court of law and public opinion that MS is a monopoly.

I'd still like to know how Microsoft can be a monopoly when there are competing products, which people just don't want to use.
Comment is free, but facts are sacred.
 C. P. Scott

Offline prometheus

  • Hot and Spicy
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3610
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #34 on: November 02, 2005, 05:15:02 am »
I'd still like to know how Microsoft can be a monopoly when there are competing products, which people just don't want to use.

Abra Los Ojos...


To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the Universe!

Offline Javora

  • America for Americans first.
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2969
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #35 on: November 02, 2005, 05:21:32 am »

Hehe, so if I sell steering wheels and whine enough then Ford have to remove all of their steering wheels and let the customer choose which one to buy?

Except that line of reasoning is flawed, Windows Media Player is not required to run Windows.  The last time I checked a steering wheel is still required to drive a car.  The idea of making car companies sell cars without steering wheels would be like forcing Microsoft to sell Windows without say DirectX or the Registry.

Don't get me wrong I see where you (and Dracho are going with this.  In fact change the words "steering wheel" with "car radio" and your argument gets real interesting really fast.  It's the slippery slope argument in a nut shell, and if Real Networks and Apple win this case it could open up to a whole new level of corporate insanity.  I could see Norton and other Firewall making companies sinking their teeth into Microsoft over Windows XP's built in firewall component.

At the same time I can understand Real Networks and Apple having an issue with Windows Media Player being automatically installed on about 90~94% (give or take a few points either way) of the worlds computers.  Sort of an unfair advantage by any standards, in fact not Ford nor any given sandwatch maker can boast that kind of marketshare (Monoply??!?).  Given that line of reasoning I can safely pull out the "compairing apples and oranges" analogy.

Let me ask a question if I may, does Apple OS X bundle its media player with their operating system?  If they do then Apple could quickly find themselves in the same boat.  However Apple could argue that they should be exempt since Apple OS X only works on Apple's Mac hardware.

The more I think about this issue the more confused I get.  One thing is for sure, these companies are lucky I'm not setting on the bench or in the jury box as I would drive them insane.  And I'd do it with a smile on my face...   ;D

Offline FMMonty

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1273
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #36 on: November 02, 2005, 08:04:18 am »
Actually a GUI isn't needed to run a computer either, why not force that to be removed too.

What we are talking about is Microsofts product.  Why can't they decide what it comes with.  Selling something is a contract, and the contract needs to be agreed by both the buyer and the seller.  Government doesn't need to get involved, nor should they.

If anyone makes a decent product people will use it.  Other companies will then compete against that company with similar products.  That is the way things work.

If Microsoft decide to up their prices, or produce a product people don't like, or their product doesn't do what people want then people will use the alternatives.  There is no need at all for legislation, except to protect the alternatives from violence or theft.
Comment is free, but facts are sacred.
 C. P. Scott

Offline Javora

  • America for Americans first.
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2969
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #37 on: November 02, 2005, 01:27:19 pm »
Actually a GUI isn't needed to run a computer either, why not force that to be removed too.


How many competing companies are putting out GUI's, not OS's but GUI's and only GUI's for people to download?  Last time I checked there wasn't all that many.  Besides that already went through the court system way back when Apple sued Microsoft over the Windows platform and we all know how that turned out.



What we are talking about is Microsofts product.  Why can't they decide what it comes with.  Selling something is a contract, and the contract needs to be agreed by both the buyer and the seller.  Government doesn't need to get involved, nor should they.


That is one point of view, another point of view would be that we are talking about fair competition in the market place.  Microsoft can't decide what comes with the operating system because they have been deemed a monoply by the Government and rightly so.  Microsoft won't agree to the buyers side of the contract, this is clearly evident by the problems that South Korea is facing with Microsoft.  Not only am I glad that the Government involved but that our Government is big enough to back Microsoft down.  I could only imagine how bad we the customers would get bent over if the Government wasn't involved.




If anyone makes a decent product people will use it.  Other companies will then compete against that company with similar products.  That is the way things work.

If Microsoft decide to up their prices, or produce a product people don't like, or their product doesn't do what people want then people will use the alternatives.  There is no need at all for legislation, except to protect the alternatives from violence or theft.


There is the rub, when it comes to operating systems, who else besides Microsoft makes a OS that people want to use.  Linux is a good five to ten years out from prime time home/office use and the Mac OS is not only a non-gaming platform but stuck on expensive proprietary hardware.  So when you stack those kinds of odds against the public the "way things work" as you put it in this case doesn't work so well.  The customers see that which is why they brought it to the court system with so called competitors (*cough* Sun Micro *cough*) help, hence the Governments involvement.  On a side note, sometimes I think that Apple is too scared to compete with Microsoft and put OS X on a store shelf for people to buy and install on PC's.  Quite frankly that point torques me off.

Offline Dracho

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 18289
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #38 on: November 02, 2005, 02:32:27 pm »
Actually, doesn't Bill Gates own a large block of Apple stock?

Yeah, here we go, back in 1997 Microsoft purchased $150 million in Apple stock..

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cyberspace/july-dec97/apple_8-6.html

The worst enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan.  - Karl von Clausewitz

Offline FMMonty

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1273
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Nightmare' drove desperate user to open source
« Reply #39 on: November 02, 2005, 03:09:23 pm »
How many competing companies are putting out GUI's, not OS's but GUI's and only GUI's for people to download?  Last time I checked there wasn't all that many.  Besides that already went through the court system way back when Apple sued Microsoft over the Windows platform and we all know how that turned out.


If the silly legislation went through then people would make them.  Businesses fill holes, thats how they work.

That is one point of view, another point of view would be that we are talking about fair competition in the market place.  Microsoft can't decide what comes with the operating system because they have been deemed a monopoly by the Government and rightly so.  Microsoft won't agree to the buyers side of the contract, this is clearly evident by the problems that South Korea is facing with Microsoft.  Not only am I glad that the Government involved but that our Government is big enough to back Microsoft down.  I could only imagine how bad we the customers would get bent over if the Government wasn't involved.


Crap.  If Microshaft triple their prices then people will go with Linux.  There is competition, however the competition isn't as good.  Until either it becomes non geek friendly, or MS makes their product too expensive people won't touch it with a gimp pole. 

Could you name me one REAL monopoly that wasn't created by government?

There is the rub, when it comes to operating systems, who else besides Microsoft makes a OS that people want to use.  Linux is a good five to ten years out from prime time home/office use and the Mac OS is not only a non-gaming platform but stuck on expensive proprietary hardware.  So when you stack those kinds of odds against the public the "way things work" as you put it in this case doesn't work so well.  The customers see that which is why they brought it to the court system with so called competitors (*cough* Sun Micro *cough*) help, hence the Governments involvement.  On a side note, sometimes I think that Apple is too scared to compete with Microsoft and put OS X on a store shelf for people to buy and install on PC's.  Quite frankly that point torques me off.


It isn't that no one makes one, it is that there isn't a better one.  MS is a victim of their own success, and until they try to gouge the customer they will remain a success.

PS Apple have just changed to the same architecture as the PC, so the next Apple OS should be PC compatible.  That should make for some fun.

They have also added another mouse button (at last, heathens) :D
Comment is free, but facts are sacred.
 C. P. Scott