Linux-Advocacy Digest #669, Volume #31 Tue, 23 Jan 01 02:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 06:17:33 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:38:11
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:47:05
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> [...]
> >> >> You seem to be proposing that a profit-seeking business would be
> >> >> interested in not making more money.
> >> >
> >> >Microsoft had already screwed over Apple with the Windows thing. Apple
is
> >> >ALSO in the software game and by most accounts, did it better.
> >>
> >> I'm not interested in "the software game", just real world markets and
> >> products. Apple doesn't make many software products; their 'game' is
to
> >> sell computers. Most all software products for Macintosh are third
> >> party.
> >
> >What little they produced, and I know this will be roundly disagreed
with,
> >was of superior quality to MS's and showed quite a bit of originality.
>
> Oh, certainly. But that's not hard. Being a monopolist, MS is quite
> incapable of producing anything of superior, or even adequate, quality,
> and originality might be used to support 'churn', but it certainly never
> translates into a user benefit.
It does ONLY in the short term as under-cutting competition makes for
cheaper software. Once the competition is gone though you're kind of at
their mercy.
> Regardless, this doesn't actually make
> DOS/Windows competitive with MacOS.
You're equating competition with innovation and product superiority. If that
is your criteria, then they most certainly weren't competitive.
> Since they can't be substituted for
> each other without changing the entire computer, its rather silly to
> talk as if they were competitors, seeing as how MS never produced
> hardware, and that's where Apple made their money.
That statement is applicable now, of course. But, early on before the
PC-standard was such, Apple could have easily taken the niche. To say they
were competitors, is indeed valid since MS was joined at the hip with only
one of the platforms. The PC and compatible market failing would have forced
them to compete with a not-so-friendly company that was capable of producing
software of a higher quality.
>
> >> >It was in
> >> >MS's best interest not to support that platform. Apple was a true
> >competitor
> >> >to them.
> >>
> >> How could they possibly be a "true" competitor, if they didn't compete
> >> in selling the same kind of product *at all*?
> >
> >MS's best interests was the PC and compatable market, which they were in
the
> >process of "owning" via exclusive software bundling, being THE universal
> >standard.
>
> That kind of "owning" is a felony. Were you aware of that? Even
> attempting that kind of "owning", in fact, is a federal crime.
I know, Max... I know...
>
> So, yes, Microsoft monopolized, committing a crime to prevent
> competition. You give it an all-too-acceptable-sounding spin when you
> refuse to recognize it as such.
I DO recognize that, Max....I do...
>
> > (Which it, indeed became regardless of how it actually happened)
>
> No, it never became "the universal standard". Again, I know YOU think
> its pedantic, but I know its actually just using the correct word for
> the correct thing. Using words that are known to be incorrect is
> called, simply, being wrong. You're wrong; Microsoft became a
> monopolist. That is the only correct way of saying it.
A software/hardware platform that runs on a vast majority of the world's
desktops IS a universal standard iregardless of whether it was made legally
or not. You're mistaking standard with kosher perhaps? <g>
>
> >If Apple, which had understandably bad blood with MS, were to catch on
big
> >and supplant the PC, MS would be out in the cold.
>
> "If"? What the fuck is that supposed to mean? As my mother-in-law used
> to say "Shit is one hand, wish in the other." "If", indeed. If wishes
> were horses, and all that.
Huh?
>
> >> >They had the potential to actually hurt them. (They also had
> >> >incentive too.)
> >>
> >> They had the potential to break the monopoly, yes. So did many other
> >> competitive threats. As for incentive, profit seeking firms
> >> unfortunately *don't* have any incentive for acting competitively in
the
> >> face of a monopolist. They either act anti-competitively, or they
> >> batten down the hatches and try to ride it out, while actually
> >> minimizing any exposure caused by development or compatibility. It
> >> hurts their customers, of course, but there's no way to prevent that.
> >> Monopolies are already illegal.
> >
> >But a fact, none-the-less. The big problem is this one was allowed to go
on
> >for too long.
>
> No, that is not a "fact, none-the-less". It is a supposition, at best.
> In fact, its worse than that, its a fantasy, since despite any
> "potential" a competitor might have to weaken a monopoly, the monopoly's
> ability to prevent them from doing so is only mitigated by the law, and
> nothing else. Since they had to be law-breakers to gain monopoly power
> to begin with, using monopoly power to maintain their dominance of the
> market is always going to be a greater potential than anything that any
> competitive producer can bring to bear. One might consider the
> possibility that an *anti-competitive* producer might be in a 'better'
> position, but unfortunately, their actions are illegal as well, and
> cause the same harm to the consumer.
>
> [...]
> >> >Despite the obvious business faux-paus, they got away with it. It made
B.G.
> >> >the richest man in the world.
> >>
> >> It was illegal. The rest is rather unimportant.
> >
> >No non-biased, thinking individual would argue the illegality of it.
>
> Do you mean "argue against the illegality of it?"
Same difference, Max...
> It seems to me that
> calling it a "business faux-paus", rather than a felony, as appropriate,
> begs the question.
The felony part is a given. I try to avoid extreme rhetoric as people tend
to equate it to fanaticism. Sad state of affairs, I know. If you vehamently
expound truths in this day and age, people automatically label you as a kook
and the truth gets placed by the wayside.
>
> >> >If supporting and standardizing multiple platforms were, in
Microsoft's
> >> >views, advantageous, they would have done it.
> >>
> >> Who cares about Microsoft's view? We're consumers, not producers.
Stop
> >> being brain-dead. That's the trouble with you Randites; you seem to
> >> think that its OK to get ripped off, as long as you get the chance to
> >> rip someone else off some time.
> >
> >You are so misunderstanding what is being said. I'm merely pointing out
why
> >multi-platform support, (which this thread had veered into), was/is so
poor
> >as to be non-existent.
>
> But you are mistaken; I am not misunderstanding you, I'm disagreeing
> with you. I am merely pointing out that the reason multi-platform
> support is poor is because of illegal behavior, and that alone.
Max, no-one has denied that the behavior i've described was illegal. It's a
given that it is.
> Your
> attempts to rationalize it as 'appropriate behavior under certain
> circumstances' is a thinly veiled apology for a monopolist.
Where have I called it appropriate?
>
> >I most certainly DON'T think any of this is OK and it
> >upsets me as much as most of us who jumped on the Linux/BSD bandwagon.
>
> Then stop trying to justify it. If you don't think its OK, then why
> does it bother you that I point out its illegal and anti-competitive,
It doesn't bother me when people point out truth. It bothers me when people
equate non-millitant rhetoric about the situation to acceptance of it.
> when you try to pretend that there is some logical efficiency involved,
> as if the decision to monopolize were one of economics. You would
> perhaps consider 'bank robber' or 'extortionist' to be perfectly
> respectable careers, other than the fact that they are unlawful.
Enough unethical people indulge in that behavior, on its' many levels, to
indeed call all of the above careers. Again, where did the word
'respectable' enter into this?
If there weren't the element of easy money (efficiency) involved, the
behavior wouldn't exist.
You can't hide from facts with idealism.
>
> >> >Had they started with a technological edge and a decent product, they
> >> >probably could have benifitted by that approach. Neither of those were
the
> >> >case.
> >>
> >> So its rather hypothetical and even unlikely, now that you mention it,
> >> that they "could have benefitted by that approach".
> >
> >If they had concentrated on developing a superior product that had appeal
> >across multiple platforms, they most certainly would have benefited.
Truth
> >be told (My truth anyway-Your milage may vary), they just weren't/aren't
> >capable of doing it.
>
> I believe the two, ability to compete, and monopolistic behavior, are
> obviously mutually exclusive. If they had been capable of not
> monopolizing, they would have been capable of developing a superior
> product.
That's basically what I said.
>
> [...]
> >> I see. I've tripped over my fanaticism again, haven't I? ;-)
> >
> >I'm just as idealistic about things as you are. I just temper it, in this
> >case, with the proven fact that money makes "suit-types" stupid.
>
> I think calling yourself idealistic because you recognize that
> monopolizing isn't competing is a real shame, and should be discouraged.
> You are not idealistic; you are honest.
I tend to cloak feelings about such things as you are instantly filed in the
fanatic catagory the minute you expose them. Even in a fanaticism-friendly
environment like COLA. <g>
> Business people who do not
> understand the difference between trying to compete and trying to
> prevent competition are, perhaps, stupid, perhaps, lazy, and, perhaps,
> dishonest. I have no interest in second-guessing any of them; I just
> want them to learn the difference, regardless of why that might be more
> difficult for them in having to overcome their greed.
An impossible task. Money always corrupts a fair percentage of people.
>
> I think, honestly, that a primary problem many of them have is that to
> question the "make more money mandate" they have, necessary to
> understand why competing is smart, industrious, and honest, and
> monopolizing is illegal, requires examination of essentially existential
> issues, and that scares them, frankly.
No, the only thing that scares them is having no money. A lot of individuals
only work to that end and nothing else. I know several. I can't wait for the
coming recession, (when it eventually gets here), to laugh at them.
>
> [...]
> >Yes, Max...It is illegal and unethical. As I've said repeatedly, the
overall
> >worth of their product had nothing to do with any of this - Their actions
> >did.
>
> Maybe that's why I keep getting all 'zealous' on you. (I do apologize
> for that; I really am trying. You'll know when I succeed, because
> you'll probably never hear from me again, as I'll have lost my reason to
> post to Usenet.)
Nahh, there's always touting Linux's superiorities and tweeking Winvocate
noses <g>
> Because my thinking is that it does, in fact, have
> much to inform us about the overall worth of their product. Either
> their software or their actions are a complete testimonial to their
> attempts to monopolize. Admittedly, the evidence of their crapware is
> not entirely conclusive, without the knowledge of their actions or
> motivations in producing it the way they did. Still, the story is writ
> large for all to see.
The story was obvious, for some anyway, clear from the beginning. I utilized
DEC for as long as I could in recognition of what was happening. The only
reason I develop for the platform now is that I have to eat. And, the only
reason I decided to take the position with the company I'm associated with
now, is that they too recognise what happened with the industry and are
developing/porting to alternative platforms in response. If they cease doing
this, i'm outta there.
>
> [...]
> >> More pointless and somewhat ludicrous second-guessing. Regardless of
> >> any putative justification, your statement is a fabrication. Apple had
> >> a good CEO, and did have a large impact. To say "if something were
> >> different, then something might be different" is just pointless
> >> posturing.
> >
> >They had a CEO that turned two divisions into direct competitors. A lot
of
> >bad blood internally in that company. It's no surprise he was ousted.
Jobs
> >was a visionary and did some right things, he just wasn't up for the "big
> >game".
>
> I'm not up for second-guessing other people's decisions and PRETENDING
> that I know what would have happened had the world not been exactly as
> it is.
Who's pretending? Hindsight is the clearest vision we posess.
>
> >Who's second guessing and fabricating, the 1980's Apple was and is a
> >brilliant example of how NOT to run a tech company. Jobs is a visionary,
not
> >a business man.
>
> I can't really understand why you would say that. Macintosh's are still
> widely available. Can't say the same for Commodores and Amigas and
> Ataris and about two dozen other proprietary microcomputers.
Commodore's failure was easy to understand - Piss-poor service. A good
freind of mine's company used to support them. They were absolutely terrible
with their support channels. The Colt-PC didn't help them either...
> In fact,
> Apple is the only proprietary microcomputer left (not counting the
> now-desktop level machines come down on high from the mini world, by way
> of the workstation market.)
They started to do some things right. A marketing make-over so to speak. I
honestly thought they'd do better than they did though. Perhaps the fact it
didn't was that folks, like me, never really took to them in the beginning.
(Pre-Mac)
>
> >> >> Its not much of a threat, since they can make Office for Mac suck as
> >> >> much as they want should people start defecting from Windows, even
at
> >> >> the expense of buying a new computer, because it sucked too much.
And
> >> >> it has the added bonus as a facade for claims of 'support for
> >> >> interoperability'. Kind of laughable, given the current discussion,
> >> >> though.
> >> >
> >> >Token gestures are a bit laughable. MS ports to that platform, and I
get
> >> >this second hand since i'm not a Mac person, were very laughable.
> >>
> >> I didn't find them at all humorous, actually. They aren't really
> >> 'token' gestures, I don't think. They might be presented as if they
> >> were, but they're more probably carefully planned strategic moves to
> >> prevent competition from threatening their monopoly.
> >
> >Perhaps they thought they could dominate the Apple market in the same way
> >they dominated the PC one.
>
> Now why would they think that? They can't control Apple like they do
> Dell; they don't produce the OS.
Hence the reason they stopped trying to do quality ports to the platform.
>
> >They couldn't do this, IMO, because they didn't
> >start on the ground floor and there were already credible applications
for
> >the platform that were superior to anything they could come up with. If
they
> >can't compete with them and can't buy them out...What do they do?
>
> Compete with them. You seem to be under the impression that to
> "compete", you have to win some final battle and put the other guy out
> of the market. That's the soft-headed thinking I'm trying to correct.
That's not my thinking - its' theirs.
> To "compete" means to continue to compete; the market is not of one
> mind, and does not select one "winner", outside the manipulation by
> criminals intent on restraining trade.
>
> Two of the most popular applications on the Macintosh were Microsoft
> applications; Excel and Word. Word for Mac versions prior to 4.x were
> often the best program available, in general. (Though most people had
> their 'favorite', of course, and would be loath to use any other. In
> this way MacWrite continued to find a market, even years after it had
> been entirely superseded on technical grounds, simply because the users
> were 'used to it'.)
And didn't like MS.
>
> Office for Mac is simply a place-holder, "insert monopoly here." MS
> used it originally to prevent any other app suite from becoming popular
> on the Mac, because then the producer would undoubtedly introduce a
> cross-platform version, and that would threaten the Office/Windows
> monopoly. Later, I think, they considered the idea of simply extending
> the Win32 middleware to Mac, and taking over the platform like that,
> through Office APIs. That didn't last long, though, probably; it became
> important to keep the Mac viable in order to use it as an "example" of
> how MS doesn't monopolize. If the Mac disappeared, it would make it all
> the more obvious, even to those who don't really understand anti-trust,
> that Microsoft was a monopoly.
Apple's continued existence didn't really seem to matter much during the
lawsuit. Sure, MS can tout that existence, but it really hasn't been that
effective.
>
> [...]
> >> Which makes it entirely and completely inefficient as a market. You
are
> >> again forgetting that monopolists don't inhabit markets or dominate
> >> markets; they prevent markets.
> >
> >Innefficient only from the market's standpoint. Not theirs.
>
> And again you've tripped over one of my guide-wires. The term
> "efficiency" only has to do with the market's standpoint. Whether a
> crime is 'efficient' from the criminals perspective is wholly
> irrelevant, and, honestly, somewhat unethical to provide as a
> consideration in this respect.
If it were not relevent, the behavior wouldn't be practiced. I'm being
realistic here...
>
> >How can you call
> >a percentage of nearly all bundled PC sales being delivered to your front
> >door inefficient.
>
> What the hell is that supposed to mean?
MS, without innovating or, indeed, working much at all, can simply sit and
issue lisences to vendors and collect percentages of those system sales.
They're a money sponge.
>
> >It's not like, until recently anyway, they had to do much
> >in the way of innovatation. Just keep the lawyers, reps, and government
> >officials fed and watered.
>
> Yes, its this casual flaunting of 'ethical calculus' which offends me so
> much I burst into rants in response to your posts, Tom. You seem to be
> carping about how well crime pays.
It does pay, only in the short term. If it didn't no-one would commit them.
You're confusing pointing out the obvious, no matter how ugly, as advocacy.
I most certainly don't advocate the behavior.
>
> [...]
> >> >> Well, technically there is a rather important difference between
market
> >> >> dominance and monopolization, you see. And, yes, this contradiction
of
> >> >> technological justification for development which decreases the
value of
> >> >> the product to the consumer is a tell-tale, in fact.
> >> >
> >> >The net result is the same regardless of what words you use to
describe it.
> >>
> >> Your interpretation of the result is incorrect, regardless of how many
> >> similar words might also describe a correct interpretation.
> >
> >How have they not dominated the market then, Max?
>
> You also misinterpreted my comment, it seems. They have monopolized the
> market, which is an illegal act. It is both legally and economically
> distinct from, and in fact contradictory to, 'dominating' the market
> through competitive means.
Irregardless of the means, they do dominate it. Means -vs- ends, Max.
>
> [...]
> >> This supposition is unsupported by any facts, I'm afraid. It is the
> >> government, not becoming "big, bloated, and inflexible", that
eventually
> >> overcomes monopolists.
> >
> >Does the government have anything to do with Microsoft's slipping market
> >share in the web server market?
>
> Certainly. Had not the monopoly trial and conviction made public the
> situation, I doubt apache would be quite so popular as it is today.
> Linux, too, for that matter.
Apache/Linux or BSD would have taken off in that market, anyway. Think -
Free products with equal to better performance -vs- expensive, unreliable,
proprietary ones. Remember what I said earlier about tanks. The government
lawsuits ARE helping as they'll hopefully speed the process up a bit.
Attacks on multiple fronts are always effective.
>
> >Why do you think they're now releasing, not
> >only 2000, but Whistler? They're running a bit scared right now. They
know
> >there are competitors out there ready and willing to devour them.
>
> There always were. Why do you think they released all their earlier
> products? There are always competitors *willing* to devour anybody in a
> market, competitor or monopolist. The difference is that being willing
> (and having a superior product, greater business acumen, or benefiting
> from an accident of history) is sufficient to compete against a
> competitor. They are not sufficient to compete against a monopolist.
The difference this time, at least in the server market, is the competitors
have a vastly superior product in terms of reliability and value. Toss in a
ready and willing support community and you've got a serious problem, (If
you're Microsoft) Why do you think they keep touting the reliability of
their new products (of course, we know better)? They know they're up against
the wall.
>
> >Government intervention helps, but folks eventually realize that better
> >options exist.
>
> Folks eventually realize that better options exist, sure. About then,
> government intervention is called for, because, despite your naive
> assumptions, competition cannot overturn a monopoly through competitive
> actions.
The process is already under way in the server market, Max. If
home-user-based distros like Mandrake keep improving, the same will happen
in that market. You just can't compete with high performace and low cost if
you bring the opposite to the market. Linux isn't quite ready yet for the
home market, unfortunately. (Go ahead and flame, folks..It isn't...but its'
getting closer...by leaps and bounds)
>
> >The government didn't weight in at all in my decision to
> >scrap NT from my present and future networking - a superior product did.
>
> Your decision did not cause Dell to start supporting Linux (or if it
> did, Dell would have offered something, anything, other than Windows,
> for the last ten years, don't you think?) The government action did.
Not enough people made the decision. You have to remember how expensive all
the alternatives were back then. Regardless of which platform you went with
you paid out the nose. Since no real standard was yet established, you stood
the chance of winding up with an expensive paperweight. (My DECPro 350 in
this case)
>
> >If
> >Linux distros only keep improving, (I just installed Mandrake
7.2...They're
> >getting closer!), Microsoft will have yet another front to defend. Their
> >outrageous pricing and that silly subscription based liscense is doing
> >nothing more than setting themseves up for the coup-de-gras.
>
> Actually, its lining their already over-grown coffers with enough cash
> to kill off Mandrake, and Linux itself, entirely, should the government
> allow MS to continue breaking the law. Likewise, .Net threatens to make
> the monopoly portable, by severing the connection to the OS itself, and
> allowing Win32/.Net to be a 'free floating' monopoly that can control
> prices and exclude competition throughout all computer platforms.
I think .NET will fly about as far as DIVX did...Only the clinically thick
fail to realize the implications.
>
> >Of course, a nice jucy court verdict would really help too :)
>
> It is far more definitive and instrumental than you suppose.
Perhaps...We'll see.
>
> [...]
> >> You assume their fortifications will ultimately be insufficient for the
> >> very purpose they were erected. That seems a tad naive.
> >
> >They're losing market share in the web market to a free product. Said
free
> >product is improving in useability and functionality with each new
release.
> >One of these days, its' going to appeal to Joe User. (As previously
> >mentioned, I popped $29.00 on Mandrake 7.2 while I was a Staples a few
days
> >ago. It isn't there yet, but, it's a damned sight better than it used to
be.
> >Fewer rough edges, better hardware detction, KDE2,...Not bad at all!)
Plus,
> >thanks to the Government, lawyers all over the country are smelling
> >Microsoft's blood in the water. The ramparts aren't really that secure
> >anymore.
>
> Precisely. Had the government not finally pinned Microsoft down, the
> monopoly would still be quite water-tight.
Not in the server market. Folks have been waiting for this for quite a
while. Myself included.
>
> >> You don't need
> >> the ability to innovate unless you are trying to *compete*. To
> >> monopolize, you just need "churn", not innovation, as Microsoft so well
> >> illustrates.
> >
> >Sad, but true. Once control a market, you can do what you please and let
the
> >green roll in...for a while. What goes around comes around.
>
> That is an idealistic, and false, supposition. "A while" is an
> indefinite time frame. One might as well say that a monopoly can only
> possibly last until the sun goes dark and the world freezes over, so it
> should be considered 'temporary'.
Nothing static and unchanging lasts especially if it's inadequate.
>
> >> So someone coming along and 'innovating' does not have the
> >> result you presume, either in theory or in fact. Your theory is
trivial
> >> to refute, as all Objectivist bullshit is. Objectivism is little more
> >> than the purposeful abrogation of the reasonable in glorious
celebration
> >> of the rational.
>
> [...]
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
