Wow, nice polemic. Andrew Latham wrote: > A must read...... > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Robert G. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Jan 23, 2007 12:28 PM > Subject: [Beowulf] An OT patented rgb editorial rant, skip if you like... > To: Ryan Waite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Beowulf Mailing List <[email protected]> > > > On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Ryan Waite wrote: > >> I know some of you aren't, um, tolerant of Microsoft for various reasons >> but I thought I'd clear up a couple errors in some of the posts. If you >> hate Microsoft at least you now have an email address for when you're >> feeling grumpy. > > I don't feel grumpy (I've had my coffee:-) about Microsoft, nor do I > hate it. > > If anything, I fear it. And so should you, even as you work for it. > > Never in the history of the world has a single company achieved the > level of single-market dominance that Microsoft now has. Even AT&T at > its peak didn't dominate the WORLD market, and it was a government > regulated monopoly (indeed, it could not have come into existence > without the active help of the government, which more or less > deliberately decided to give it exclusivity in the market in exchange > for accepting government regulation and price control). J.D. > Rockefeller was a piker, Vanderbilt a wimp in comparison. Only Ford, > perhaps, enjoyed a similar period of global dominance but then, no, > probably not, as global markets didn't really exist until after he had > competition. > > Microsoft, on the other hand, is for all practical purposes completely > unregulated, it faces no serious competition, it routinely engages in > business practices that make it very difficult for serious competition > to ever arise, and it extends all over the world, not just in the United > States. It has long since surpassed critical mass. It has demonstrated > conclusively that it is invulnerable to antitrust suits -- it can > cheerfully spend more money defending against them than it stands to > lose, and can stand to lose a billion dollars, and still come out > unimaginably ahead. After all, its opponents also have to match it > dollar for dollar and politically breaking it up is not an option even > if it is the "obvious" thing to do. > > Microsoft has exploited its position to achieve the unthinkable -- it > has become a globe-spanning "hydraulic empire" (water monopoly), the > strongest kind of monopoly there is and one where it has virtually NO > competition and where by virtue of its position it can ensure that NO > competition has any sort of realistic chance to emerge. > > This is more than an analogy -- its practices fit this historical model > better, in many ways, than e.g the Chinese empires that were one of > Wittfogel's original examples. By controlling the basic operating > system (the "water") it has asserted a level of control over the mass > software market for PCs that vastly exceeds any reasonable definition of > a "trust". Basically, it does whatever it likes in this market, in such > a way that it literally cannot be opposed. Time and again, when a new > software market has developed in the past, when an entrepreneur has come > up with a good idea and at risk of personal fortune and time created a > new software product, Microsoft has simply written their own version of > the product, shifted the access of their competitor to the "water" of > the operating system to create problems that they (Microsoft) are able > to avoid, and behold! The emperor's troops remain healthy and strong > while those of the upstart warlords are thin and emaciated without the > water to grow rice! They have then proceeded to take as much of the > market as they liked. Where is Borland today? Lotus? Corel? > Netscape? Even Apple exists to some extent because Microsoft "needs" a > visible "competitor" lest our government be forced to actually > acknowledge the obvious truth. OS2 was the last viable candidate for a > competitor, and if it had won IT would doubtless have become the > hydraulic empire and we'd all be railing against IBM. > > I could go on (and have gone on in this and other forums in the past:-). > Adam Smith's invisible hand relies on the POSSIBILITY of nucleation and > growth of real competition, but the wonderful (from Microsoft's point of > view) thing about hydraulic empires is that they historically never fall > from within, and even when conquered from without their replacement > starts to "look like" the conquered bureaucracy -- the temptation to > exert abolute control by controlling access to water is just too strong. > Only forces from outside -- foreign barbarian invaders -- tend to be > able to bring about real change. > > So when netscape emerges as a viable competitor in one small part of the > Empire -- sorry, no water for you. Your product will not work, our > competing product cannot be removed and does. Java? A clear threat, as > it enables the development of software that does not rely on our supply > of water -- suborn it and insert our own insidious code base to ensure > that future programs written to use it require water from our carefully > controlled and expensive wells. Make sure that our customers know that > glacial ice melt water provided by penguins, however clear and cold and > free of access, is of limited supply and contains giardia, cholera, > amoebic dysentary and possibly traces of mercury and radioactive > compounds because penguins have unclean habits and never wipe their feet > and should NEVER be used to make java. We (Microsoft) cannot lose, > because somewhere between 90% and 95% of all desktops already run our > flavor of water (and the exceptions are pretty much confined to graphics > arts workstations or geek machines, both ignorable markets that we still > dominate anyway) and will hence inherit our flavor of Java. Business > developers who choose to fight the trend will simply dry up and blow > away, and if we have to pay Sun a half-billion dollars in "damages" who > cares? The real "damage" is already done to our advantage and the > markets at stake are tens of billions per year. > > Or my favorite -- when assessing and certifying competence on computers > in the state of North Carolina, students are tested on the use of an > integrated office suite. Which one(s)? Well, let's see. Schools have > the choice of Microsoft Office, Microsoft Works (even for -- and this is > not a joke -- DOS 2 or 3) or Apple Works (or again not a joke, Claris). > > Hmmm. Apple has been driven to the edge of extinction several times and > has only been teased back from the brink by the invention of the ipod > and OSX (the latter allowing it to tap into the fast pool of OS software > and solving to some extent Apple's problems finding people outside of > Apple willing to develop for the platform). And Apple has a certain > appeal in elementary schools in the state, especially with the deals > Apple is willing to cut to remain in the market. Still, what does this > mean, practically speaking, given the cold hard reality of that 95%+ of > all BUSINESS desktops being Microsoft mentioned above? That the great > state of North Carolina metaphorically tests "driving" -- not of any old > vehicle -- but of a Ford, because if and when you graduate and go on to > work in business, you're gonna be driving a Ford. > > Oh, you can use a late model Ford, a used Ford, or even one of those > antique Fords that still use handbrakes and are started with a little > handle up front, but a Ford it must be. And if not a Ford, we'll > tolerate an "artistic" American Motors, because after all it is modelled > upon the Ford and besides some of us still own stock in it or like the > garish colors of its sporty models. Don't even think about coming in to > pass your driving test in one of those "open source" autos, that somehow > auto-magically assemble themselves -- God knows if the gearshift even > works, and then don't run on the approved flavor of Water. > > Thank you North Carolina (and many, many other states). Talk about >>> institutionalizing<< a monopoly by >>government mandate<< by training > our children to accept it as the natural state of affairs from their > earliest years... > > This globe-spanning supermonopoly is a serious and ongoing threat to our > personal freedom. This is for a variety of reasons. For one, the > "water" that is being controlled is the fundamental means of processing > information, and we live in a society where information and its > processing is so tightly integrated with economic, governmental, > military, and research activities that the possibilities of abuse in > this arena are positively nightmarish (and are explored in various > movies and books that make this point). For another, the monopoly (like > all superpowerful orgainizations, criminal or otherwise) becomes a form > of "shadow government" -- collecting what resembles a tax far more than > a fee for service as an unavoidable cost of doing business, since there > is really no viable alternative to using water from their tightly > controlled and very expensive wells. > > The supermonopoly can also directly impact political choice simply > because of its vast resources. Money has a huge effect on the success > of modern media-based political campaigns, and by directing even tiny > bits of its vast resources -- through completely legal means -- a > supermonopoly can have a disproportionate effect on political campaigns > and political decision making. We've seen how pervasive this sort of > thing can be in the case of e.g. the tobacco industry and its powerful > and well-funded lobby, that kept it more or less invulnerable to any > sort of rational regulation at the cost of HUNDREDS of millions of LIVES > worldwide over the DECADES from when the scientific evidence of > addiction, mobidity and mortality was completely overwhelming and beyond > any reasonable doubt. If we can't even act to preserve our lives > against the power and money of the tobacco lobby, who could expect us to > act to preserve something as ephemeral as our informational freedom in > the hands of a supermonopoly that doesn't need a "consortium" of > companies to create a lobby -- it IS the consortium? > > Almost by definition, much of the influence exercised in this way is > "invisible" -- it can be uncovered only by means of nearly impossible > detective work, and then usually only surfaces during a scandal of some > sort where the usual protections of cronyism, "unremarkable" memberships > on the board of directors of seemingly disconnected companies, and > untraceable non-cash quid-pro-quo deals break down. Some of it IS > uncovered, but it turns out (unsurprisingly) that short of a smoking gun > or the crossing of an invisible line somewhere, nobody cares. So Tom > Delay goes down, perhaps there are connections there back to Microsoft, > perhaps not, but they are quickly explained or hushed and everybody goes > back to their business having seen "nothing". > > Why is that? Well, for one thing in addition to holding a water > monopoly sort of control over competitors that makes it "impossible" for > a serious competitor for any given significant software product it takes > an interest in to emerge WITHIN the confines of its uniquely pervasive > desktop operating system, it gets to rely on a variety of aspects of > human nature to help it maintain a position where people don't CARE if > it maintains its monopoly, or even actively support it. They are > content, as it were, to accept the risk to their personal freedoms and > to pay the Microsoft tax as long as their own personal computing > environment remains familiar. Just as was the case for decades with > AT&T. > > It is a sad fact that roughly 90% of all humans hate to have to learn > new things (a thing that I constantly struggle with as a teacher and > parent). Seriously. Sure, there are exceptions -- all people don't > mind learning some new things, some people would love to be able to > learn all new things, but all people do NOT want to learn all new things > and a significant class doesn't want to have to learn at all. As a > species, though we live in a perpetual state of what Alvin Toffler once > called "Future Shock" and we just aren't evolved for it. We especially > hate to have to learn new things (and maybe fail at it!) in order to > keep our jobs, in order to be able to do work we've already figured out > how to do "the old way". Learning is "expensive". It costs time and > money. There is also something mysterious about how it is an >>> unpleasant<< aspect of mental activity for most people -- we are > somehow evolved, one is almost forced to conclude, to >>avoid<< the > particular mental actions and states associated with structured > learning. > > As a systems person I've seen this a million times over. Once a > secretary or office person has by virtue of necessity associated with > the means of making their living overcome all of the pain and invested > all of the time and "mastered" enough of e.g. Microsoft Office to be > able to do their job with it, they will NOT willingly change. Change > means threat, it means more work for them, it means an uncomfortable > period of uncertainty -- they will only willingly change if they are > de-facto threatened with dismissal if they fail to change and if they > are supported through the change, at which point they will become just > as adamently opposed to change away from the new product. [This isn't > just a factor that works in favor of Microsoft products -- for many > years the physics department used (the old toy) Macintoshes > administratively because our then chair was enamored of them. When a > new chair took over and decided to change away from this system to > Windows based PCs (this was an easy ten years ago and Linux wasn't even > a vaguely possible alternative at that point, and Sun workstations which > were were 2-3x more expensive) there was much pain and resistance and > suffering before the move was accomplished.] > > Humans in this state become conservative and defensive about the > provider of the flavor of water they think that they need to survive, > unmolested by the need to change. They are in a curious way addicted, > trapped in their current way of doing business by many natural and > artificial/perceived barriers to change. > > EVEN if many flavors of water were out there, they'd prefer a world with > only the one they are "used to" because they have a hard time coping > with change, with choice, with the "threat" associated with the > possibility that they might be required to learn a new tool that is > finally beyond their abilities to master or that lacks some feature that > they have grown accustomed to in their old toolset. Remember, computers > in particular are the leading edge, the very shockwave itself, of Future > Shock. Moore's Law more or less guarantees it. Five years is enough to > see a complete revolution, change that might have taken a lifetime to > see two hundred and fifty years ago compressed into two hundred and > fifty weeks. > > Voice recognition is coming, so are universal convertible tablets, plus > changes as yet unknown, all of them scary, unsettling, expensive. Not > even industry pundits can predict what the world of computing will be > like five years from now with any real accuracy, and in ten years we > will probably be carrying around fully voice-driven wireless universal > interfaces to "the network" which at long last will indeed be "the > computer" -- and the media delivery channel, and the phone system, and > roughly 90% of our active memory and de facto usable intelligence. Or > something even more bizarre. > > So sure, those humans are actually perfectly happy to worship the > Emperor and bless Him at meals, as it is by the Emperor's good graces > that food arrives on the table -- his water let's their crops of rice > grow and if fools start digging their own wells or diverting the rivers > of free water there will be war and chaos and "interesting times". It > is better to remain a peasant with rice on the table than to be brave > and perhaps watch one's children starve or to die at the hands of the > barbarians. > > Finally, there is Microsoft and pension plans and the general stock > market. This is perhaps the scariest part of Microsoft's supermonopoly > status, one that a gentleman named Bill Parrish seems to have devoted > himself to uncovering and laying bare to an obviously uncaring world. > Microsoft stock is a rather huge component of stock owned by both > pension plans and individual "S&P Index" investors (and individuals) all > over the world. If Microsoft stock were to collapse, or even to slip > steadily down in nominal value, the economic consequences would be > catastrophic. It would make the collapse of Enron look tame by > comparison, because Microsoft is considerably larger at baseline than > Enron ever was. This creates a HUGE disincentive for individuals and > companies to challenge Microsoft's hydraulic legacy -- Microsoft has > essentially tied the future well being and wealth of an entire > generation of corporate employees and index fund investors to their own > continued success. > > Who can doubt the political impact of this astounding fact (and feat)? > What president, what attorney general, would dare to tackle this > supergiant when by doing so he or she would damage the retirement > prospects of tens of millions of (voting) people? Even traditional > opponents of supermonopolies quail before the damage this would do to > the ordinary workers that are their constituents. Note that Microsoft > is nearly unique in their status here -- in most other industries a > gradual slippage gives the market time to adjust and reinvest in other > emerging and more profitable businesses in the same sector, including > those that are (in a healthy market economy) the ones that are putting > the hurt on the failing business. > > However there ARE no other businesses poised to "become Microsoft", and > there is little sign that anybody really wants a mixed marketplace with > many choices (an argument that was used for years to justify the > perpetuation of AT&T, BTW, although after it was broken up it turned out > that the consumer just LOVED the explosion of competitive alternatives > for their phone service dollar and still are benefitting from them > today). Apple is still a joke as far as threats go, and could be > quashed more or less at will if it were in Microsoft's real interest to > do so -- they NEED at least one "visible" competitor to trumpet in their > period antitrust suits to help them advance the argument that they don't > need to be broken up like AT&T was, they're just strugging to keep their > head above water folks, really, competition could emerge >>any day > now<<. So sure, Linux makes steady inroads in the server market and > somehow managed to create a multibillion dollar cluster market all by > itself, other unices are holding their own or slipping a bit, but the > big market, the one that matters, are the hundreds of millions of > desktop computers, not the millions of servers that serve them (that are > STILL overwhelmingly Microsoft servers), and they all use Microsoft > water to grow Microsoft rice that has to be eaten with Microsoft > chopsticks from a Microsoft bowl (where other chopsticks tend to drop > valuable grains of rice, other bowls spill rice on the table) by an > overwhelming margin. > > Even if (or rather when, in my opinion) Linux emerges as a viable threat > on the desktop, it will do so in a way that is disasterous for those > pension funds, because it will do so by DEFLATING the incredibly > INFLATED software market back to something approximating true value. > This isn't "just" a matter of Linux being basically free so that > software companies in this market are really service providers and not > software providers, eliminating the high margins of pure profit > associated with having dozens of products developed and maintained by > any ten or even hundred employees that are then resold onto a hundred > million or more desktops. Microsoft's P/E for years has been one of a > strong growth company and is in no way balanced as a generator of steady > revenues as an income stock. If (or rather, WHEN) its growth shows > signs of actually peaking, not just bobbling along with the market or > tapering off but actually deflating some with no obvious new markets to > exploit and no more headroom for growth, The P/E bubble will burst and > Microsoft could lose 1/3 to 2/3 of its value in a matter of a year, with > NO company emerging as a suitable reinvestment platform to replace the > money with matching stratospheric growth in the sector. A hundred > billion dollars will simply vanish from our economy like the paper it > is, dragging with it hundreds of billions more as the complex of debt > structures, pension investments, exchanges of services, and so on comes > crashing down. > > Sure, we would survive this, just as we survived the S&L collapse that > caused a few hundred billion paper dollars to disappear, we survived the > dotcom collapse brought about by a lot of ongoing business practices > that inflate apparent value and preserve the illusion of endless growth, > we survived Enron, we survived Tyco, we survived MCI/Worldcom. However, > what politician wants to be seen as the one that triggers such a > collapse, even the collapse of a rotten, termite-ridden house when that > house shelters millions of voters? What businessman (or congressman) is > immune to the charm of continuing to buy into Microsoft's empire when > Microsoft's market position makes it so easy and besides, it would be > bad for their own pension plans and their own personal investment > portfolios to do otherwise? > > In my opinion, the world is still coming to grips with emerging global > supermonopolies, with intellectual property seen now as a "natural > resource" to be created by individual minds, often with high risks, and > then taken over by corporate supergiants as their bread and butter > resource. Strong historical, political and economic forces conspire to > protect many of these supermonopolies because they often provide > services or goods that are "necessary" to the functioning of the global > economy. Also, they necessarily have as an essential part of their > superorganismal nature an urge to grow, to dominate markets, to quash > competition, to make more money for their shareholders and preserve the > power and intersts of their corporate leadership and employees. They > are indeed little shadow governments, and have interests that are not, > actually, the interests of the general public at heart. > > They are opposed, ultimately, not by the forces of communism or > totalitarianism (either of which tend to simply "become" the hydraulic > empire anew under new management) but by the forces of a free society > with the right to regulate business practice and level playing fields > for the common good. The laws of our free society, however, change > slowly, very slowly compared to the rate at which supermonopolies have > emerged, and at no time have the lawmakers been free from the immense > influence wielded by those supermonopolies via the mechanisms outlined > above. As a consequence we must suffer each "surprising" collapse, each > "unethical" business practice that is revealed for the pyramid scheme or > shell game that it is when the peak of the pyramid is finally reached > and there is no longer any way to pay off the expectations of all of > those who invested in it. > > So no, I don't hate Microsoft, any more than I hate Ford or hate Exxon > or hate Verizon or hate Enron. I fear Microsoft for the threat it > implies to my own personal political freedom, for the influence it has > had on the last couple of presidential and all ongoing congressional > elections (won, we must recall, by the thinnest of margins and usually > by the candidate with the deepest pockets), for the disaster I see > looming when it can no longer count on growing at a rate that justifies > its shareholders expectations as a "growth stock" and is left in a state > of eternal war to defend a slowly eroding income stream against the tiny > nibbling penguins that ultimately will only go away if Microsoft manages > to stake out some sort of unassailable intellectual property turf, and > for the significant problems I see associated with any company's IP > becoming a de facto standard for information storage and processing, > especially for the government. > > So I forsee "interesting times" ahead on all fronts. As a Microsoft > employee, you can hardly state in print that you share any of these > concerns. You more or less have to defend the point of view that it is > simply great and wonderful that a single company controls such an > overwhelming share of the world's information technology industry (and > wealth -- more than a rather impressive list of COUNTRIES) because it is > YOUR company and YOU benefit directly from its success. You have to be > overjoyed to see that yet another possible high growth market will be > usurped and co-opted on behalf of your Emperor because it pays for the > rice that feeds your children and maintains a state of peace in the > Empire. > > These are good times, for you. The barbarian penguins are far away and > weak -- it is easy in this time of plenty to feel the warm joy of a life > well lived and well ordered, where all of humanity worships the Emperor > and eats his the rice that the water that he controls makes possible, > even when it is the peasants themselves that actually grow the rice and > pump the water up from his wells with the strength of their backs. It > is even possible to learn from these upstart penguins, to observe how > they fight battles and use the profitable weapons they have discovered > back upon them, a strategy that has worked well so many times before. > > It is not necessary, nor even desireable, to wipe them out, any more > than it would be a good thing to eliminate the loyal opposition, Apple. > The forms of democracy and "free-market" competition must be observed. > All that is needed is to ensure that no seed may be planted, no twisted > sapling take root, that might one day grow into a vast kudzu-like mass > that could challenge the Emperor, and so the Emperor's ministers remain > vigilant, guarding against these weeds that can grow without the > Emperor's water by crowding them out, buying them out, or planting right > next to them and lavishing such care as to ensure that they grow strong > while the challenger at best lives a blighted existence thereafter. > Perfection is not needed -- good enough is plenty when you rule the > entire world. > > As a human being, though, you too must fear the Emperor. If he fails, > you will be among the first to starve. His weaknesses are your > weaknesses, and in our society there are always the Gods of Democracy > and Free Trade that stand even over the Emperor and can, with the stroke > of a pen, cast him down. There are always the warring demons of the > stock exchange, ever fickle, that can lose confidence in the strength of > the Emperor and overnight make you a pauper. There is the chance that > among the penguins will emerge a veritable Ghengis Khan who will overrun > the Empire with a might horde. To defend against these threats the > Emperor ever seeks to extend his Dominion over even these Gods and > Demons, to arrange matters so that no longer are his ministers and loyal > subjects threatened in this way but instead are protected, aye, are > become one with the Gods themselves. To have to eat the Emperor's rice > by law, to see it served in all of the schools, surely that is enough to > ensure the immortality of the Emperor and all who support him. > > But never forget -- the barbarian penguins have one weapon, one tool, > that the Emperor can never embrace for it would unmake him, and cause > his mighty empire to unravel and turn to dust even as he sought to grasp > it. A tool stronger than the worst Khan of a penguin of sweaty > nightmares, a weapon greater than any other ever discovered. Everybody > on this list knows well what it is, and why that tool makes it > impossible, ultimately, to wipe out these pesky penguins UNLESS the > Emperor becomes a Dark God and can do so by fiat, unless the Empire is > indeed protected by force of law. > > Do you? > > rgb > > -- > Robert G. Brown http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/ > Duke University Dept. of Physics, Box 90305 > Durham, N.C. 27708-0305 > Phone: 1-919-660-2567 Fax: 919-660-2525 email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _______________________________________________ > Beowulf mailing list, [email protected] > To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit > http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf > >
_______________________________________________ Fwlug mailing list [email protected] http://fortwaynelug.org/mailman/listinfo/fwlug_fortwaynelug.org
