Linux-Advocacy Digest #681, Volume #31 Tue, 23 Jan 01 16:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:16:45 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 06:17:33
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >> 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.
You confuse, I think, a facially plausible user benefit for a real one.
A mistake Microsoft would dearly love to institutionalize, but a
mistake, all the same. The "virtual competition improves monopoly
products" theory is a Randian fantasy.
>> 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.
No, I'm equating competition with competition. Whether or not the
alternate products embody "innovation" or "product superiority" is for
the self-selected portion of the market which purchase that alternative
to decide; it is not my concern to go around second-guessing everyone.
My only criteria for being competitive is to not be anti-competitive,
and in that way, they (Microsoft) 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.
More second-guessing, I'm afraid. I hate to sound like Erik Funkenbusch
with an argument from ignorance, but the fact is that you cannot know
what "could have easily" occurred, either way, because it didn't occur.
There is no reason I can think of to believe that the PC platform wasn't
popular for precisely the obvious reason why it should be so: it was an
open architecture that therefore allowed competition between computer
manufacturers using commodity components, ensuring it was less costly
than the proprietary alternatives, such as Apple.
>To say they
>were competitors, is indeed valid since MS was joined at the hip with only
>one of the platforms.
You have to start being careful about the 'theys', and what you mean by
'competitor'. Could a typical person, acting as a reasonably
knowledgable consumer, make a choice based on the merits of the product
and price between partial or complete substitutes available as
alternatives?
>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.
Nothing can force MS to compete, so long as they are willing and capable
of engaging in criminal actions instead. That's why a structural remedy
is being pursued.
[...]
>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>
No, I am mistaking standard with standard. You are mistaking it with
"monopoly". Your argument seems to say that if you manage to break the
law and monopolize, you become "the standard". The term simply cannot
be applied in that case, regardless of whether it could be applied (in
the more kosher phrase "de facto standard") to a competitive product
which gains wide popularity.
[...]
>> >No non-biased, thinking individual would argue the illegality of it.
>>
>> Do you mean "argue against the illegality of it?"
>
>Same difference, Max...
I needed clarification, it was not obvious from syntax; so save the
attitude.
>> 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.
Sorry; it sounds like apologetic soft-soaping. Maybe its a "sad state
of affairs". Maybe you're just not interested in the truth, to begin
with, and would like people reading your words to simply forget that the
actions under discussion are criminal behavior, not a business strategy.
[...]
>> >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.
But the way you repeat that over and over, and then go on to once again
ignore this "given", leads me to suspect that your intent, knowingly or
not, may be to indicate that this is some arbitrary and abstract matter,
as if the only logical reason it is illegal behavior is because the
government passed a law against it. This ignores and conflicts with the
reality; that the government outlawed it because it is unacceptable, is
not profit-seeking behavior, and causes harm to others even outside the
domain of the transactions being monopolized, without mitigation.
>> 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 didn't say you called it appropriate, I said you are attempting to
rationalize it as appropriate. You can either deny it, or you can
refute it. So far, you have denied it, but you haven't refuted it, and
you continue to do it, as far as I can see. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I
suspect that discussing it is as much an anathema to you as admitting
it.
[...]
>> >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.
Why? Unless your intent is to accept it, what point is there in
non-militant rhetoric? I'd happily discuss the situation with you, if
you didn't insist in constantly returning the discussion to rhetoric.
Its illegal, its unacceptable, and second guessing business cases from
history in making it seem as if monopolization is the same as
competitive activity is simply not called for.
I'm not an extremist, BTW. I am, however, a reactionary. That's why I
sound like I'm an extremist in these things. But the extremity of my
reaction is predicated upon the wrongfullness of the prevailing wisdom.
Since you, unfortunately (for you), well represent a lot of the false
assumptions and inaccurate understanding that makes up that prevailing
wisdom, I'm afraid it must look like I'm picking on you. For that, I
apologize. But the obvious way to prevent that is to simply recognize
the limitations of your thinking. Then I will be more "reasonable".
>> 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?
There are no unethical people; just unethical actions. The above are
criminal activities. To call them "careers" does, indeed, bring the
word "respectable" into it, by rhetorical necessity.
>If there weren't the element of easy money (efficiency) involved, the
>behavior wouldn't exist.
>
>You can't hide from facts with idealism.
It is not idealism to point out that "easy money" != "efficiency". You
can't hide the facts by calling them 'idealism'.
[...]
>> >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.
You might certainly think so, but you are mistaken. Your supposition
was that "if they had concentrated on" being competitive, they "would
have been capable" of competing. Evidence may even support that
hypothesis, but its certainly not solid enough to be logically assumed.
>> [...]
>> >> 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>
One is always instantly filed somewhere. If you have a reasonable
position, however, there's no reason to be afraid to defend it, and if
you are not willing to state your opinion without attempting to cloak or
hide it, then chances are it is not well-reasoned.
>> 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.
You say that as if that percentage of people cannot accurately be
identified as "the dishonest ones".
>> 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.
Be careful; they'll take away your copy of Atlas Shrugged.
[...]
>> 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.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. "Hindsight bias", the tendency
to pick out an arbitrary set of historical facts and pretend they were
inevitable and could have been predicted, had we but known all the facts
we do now, is no less problematic than "selection bias", the tendency to
remember the hits, and forget the misses.
[...]
>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...
Hindsight whining. I never used any "support channels", but IIRC,
commodore computers were a couple hundred dollar throw-away consumer
boxes. What "servicing" could they need? I would suggest you're simply
engaging in the aforementioned hindsight bias and selection bias, and
conveniently assuming that your expectation of what would be efficient
to provide for a support channel for that product in that time period
and environment matched the reality.
AFAIK, Commodore didn't have any "failure", and remained a popular
computer even some time after the PC dropped the bottom out of the
proprietary microcomputer market.
>> 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)
Attributing *anything* to "marketing" is really just lazy thinking, I
believe. Its a handy excuse to use for why something becomes widely
available, when its really a result, not a cause, of business activity.
[...]
>> >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.
Just because a sow will achieve air-speed velocity when launched from a
cannon does not mean that pigs can fly, Tom. Again, your assumption is
that these were business strategy decisions, rather than monopolistic
behavior. For instance, why wasn't it "hence the reason they stopped
doing any 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.
So far, I only have your claim of that. Why don't you stick to posting
your own thinking, instead of presuming what others' thinking is?
>> 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.
Again, you mistake a result for a cause.
>> 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.
I didn't say it was the court which they'd hoped would buy the ruse.
[...]
>> >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...
No, you're being needlessly facetious, here. You are misusing the term
'efficiency' by changing its context from that of the market
efficiencies which competition provides to "whether we make any money on
it." That's not appropriate, given the argument. I will repeat,
whether a crime is 'efficient' from the criminals perspective is wholly
irrelevant, and, honestly, somewhat unethical to provide as a
consideration in this respect.
[...]
>> >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.
Again, you mistake the use of the term 'efficient'. Perhaps you didn't
realize we are discussing market behavior, not whether monopolization
'pays off'. As I've said repeatedly (and will again), one doesn't
consider bank robbery in terms of whether it is a "well paying job"; it
is criminal activity, not 'an honest day's work'.
[...]
>> >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.
Yes, you do. You confuse pretending you don't advocate behavior with
not advocating it.
I am sure, again, that you would be more than happy to try to disregard
my point as polemic, but the fact is that all those people who are
willing to believe "that's the way business works in the real world" are
as much to blame for monopolization as the many business people who are
equally, if more purposefully, ignorant of the distinction between
competitive and anti-competitive (illegal) behavior. It is not a fine
line; it is a gulf of vast distances, in fact. They may appear to end
in the same type of result, but that is a matter of the ignorance or
understanding of the observer, not the reality of the matter.
[...]
>> 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.
See previous comment. There is no cause or reason to disregard the
means, nor are the ends the same, as you suggest.
[...]
>> >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.
You again seem to be under the impression that the economic benefit of
the consumer is at all limiting to the potential activities of the
monopolist. Think - just how many ways are there for Microsoft to
destroy a potentially competing products market?
Granted, market actions ARE helping as they'll hopefully speed the
remedy up a bit. But attacks on multiple fronts are not always
effective, though them may typically be more effective than single-pring
attacks.
[...]
>The difference this time, at least in the server market, is the competitors
>have a vastly superior product in terms of reliability and value.
I don't see how that is any different than any other market Microsoft
has monopolized.
Note that the crime is monopolizing; it doesn't matter how successful
the attempts are, and there's no reason to say "they're not
monopolizing" simply because they haven't yet accomplished it. Even
attempted monopolization is illegal, for this very reason.
Your assumption that the ability to illegally restrain trade is
mitigated by the technical superiority of the alternative indicates
nothing more than a lack of understanding of anti-trust.
>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.
Well, we certainly don't remember Microsoft ever touting the reliability
of new products. Doh.
>>
>> >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)
Indeed. It may have escaped your notice, since if its not widely
reported in the Media it obviously can't have any effect on your life,
but Microsoft has already been convicted. You are correct, though, that
you can't compete with high performance and low cost. You seem still to
be terminally confused on this point, though: monopolies do not compete.
Their actions are not called "anti-competitive" just because somebody
doesn't like them. That term has meaning, you know; an anti-competitive
action is not the same class of activity as a competitive action. And
you can't compete against anti-competitive actions.
Finally, I think the only rational way of putting your last,
'flaim-bait', comment would be "the home market isn't ready for Linux
yet, but soon it will be". You are right that the consumer isn't ready
for Linux, but that's a result, again, not a cause, of the 'success' of
monopolization.
[...]
>> >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.
Nobody had the opportunity to make the decision, so how can "enough" of
them make it?
>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)
Back when? Suddenly you want to talk legacy Unix pricing?
[...]
>I think .NET will fly about as far as DIVX did...Only the clinically thick
>fail to realize the implications.
Without a government remedy, that would be entirely beside the point.
[...]
>> >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.
We already have. Within weeks of the court decision, three of the
largest PC OEMs started offering Linux. Free from the fear of
retaliation, the market is already starting to be restored. Such
attempts will be stalled, of course, by Microsoft's attempt to make the
monopoly OS-portable by migrating the user base to .NET, but there's no
reason to believe that the Microsoft split will not be substantially
begun, if not effectively completed, by the end of the year.
[...]
>> 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.
Why waiting? ;-)
[...]
>> >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.
I don't understand this assumption you have that a monopoly must be
'static and unchanging'. Monopolists are predatory and aggressive, and
Microsoft itself epitomizes the ability of a monopolist to 'embrace and
extend' and use 'churn' to prevent either characteristic from making the
inadequacies of their product obvious and potentially vulnerable to
competition.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:16:46 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:08:14
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > Oh yeah, and by the way, what are they running on the back end that
>> > does all the searching?
>> >
>> > Yeah, that's right. It used to be NT, I think it's partly NT/Solaris
>> > now. They might be migrating all to Solaris, but maybe not after
>> > the ebay debacle.
>>
>> Garsh. I almost find myself tempted to ask why they're migrating to Solaris
>> rather than to W2K.
>
>Sun probably paid them a bunch to do it.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha. They almost certainly paid Sun a bunch to do it, I'd
wager. :-D
>However, it was supposed to be completed a long time ago, and I don't
>recall seeing a PR that herralded it, so perhaps they changed their mind.
[...]
Does anyone know what this 'ebay' thing that Chad keeps trying to troll
about is?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
