Linux-Advocacy Digest #460, Volume #32 Sun, 25 Feb 01 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: RTFM at M$ (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Interesting article (Jim Richardson)
Re: RTFM at M$ (Ray Chason)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Dan Pop)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Now we know why Allchin was tweaked! (Ray Chason)
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Adam Warner")
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:10:54 -0600
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <iTel6.491$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >This ignores the fact that MS's software has gone down in price when
you
> >> >factor in inflation, and the amount of software you get per dollar.
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't, though your statement does ignore the fact that it has
> >> not gone down in price at all, nor kept up with the competition in
terms
> >> of the amount of functionality included with the distribution.
> >
> >If the numbers on the price tag stay the same, and inflation goes up.
The
> >dollar value has dropped, and thus the product becomes cheaper.
> >
> As I pointed out in my direct response to your post, the Findings of
> Fact include email evidence from Jim Allchin which contradicts you.
I don't care if the pope contradicts me. These are hard cold facts.
A) It's a fact that the number of dollars charged for Windows has not
changed in 6 years.
B) It's a fact that inflation has increased in those 6 years.
C) It's a fact that we now recieve more software with windows than we did 6
years ago.
D) It's a fact that when inflation increases, the value of the dollar
decreases.
E) It's a fact that if number of dollars stay the same while inflation goes
up, that the actual cost of the product has gone down.
No amount of email evidence you try to put up will change these economical
facts. Stop pretending it's not true.
> >He claims that MS inhibits innovation. Linux flies in the face of that.
> >Linux doesn't depend on a market to grow its technology base, since the
> >people that use it enhance it. Since Linux's technology has not advanced
> >past the level that MS's has, and in most cases, Linux is still trying to
> >catch up to Windows, that theory is bogus. If the argument were true, th
en
> >Linux's technology would completely surpass Windows.
> >
> I have never claimed that MS makes innovation totally stop just that
> it raises the cost of bringing such innovation to market.
Then explain how Debian is able to bring them to market for free.
> Linux, and other Open Source projects, are making advances in spite
> of having had little funding because the people involved are
> donating millions of hours of programming, testing, and debugging
> time every year.
So you admit that Linux doesn't exist in this market in the traditional
sense of "market".
> That represents an investment buy the communities of something close
> to a billion dollars a year in intellectual capital. Even IBM has
> said that they cannot match that.
Great.
> That is finally beginning to allow people to see that not all
> computing needs to be under the thumb of MS.
Then what's your argument?
> That is what MS has used to keep out potential innovations and still
> some trickle through. By having millions of innovative drips even
> MS will eventually be submerged in the flood.
Many markets have large financial barriers to entry. You can't come into
the automobile market without spending billions in factory and R&D costs.
You can't get into the processor market without spending billions. You
can't provide long distance service without spending billions in
infrastructure. That's just the cost of getting into a very well
established market.
> As for "Linux's technology has not advanced past the level that MS's
> has". Since Linux compiles the same kernel to run on the iPAQ and
> the z900 and MS require different source trees for servers and
> desktops on x86 alone how can you justify saying that ?
NT/2000 uses the same source tree for Server and Desktop.
In any event, we're talking about end-user technology, not OS developer
technology.
> Linux has grown from nothing but a mutitasking plaything on Linus'
> desk to running several, I have pointers to ten at least, computers
> in the top 500 largest supercomputers in the world. I have a single
> pointer to a W2K member of that group. How is Linux behind by that
> measure ?
One data item is not a complete picture. Linux has nothing like DirectX.
Windows has more features that beat Linux's features than vice versa.
> Linux today, in delivered code, functions perfectly on 64 bit CPUs.
Great. MS has shipping versions of NT that also run on 64 bit CPU's. NT4
runs fine on Alpha's, which are all 64 bit.
> MS has a version which boots on Itanium, again only a single
> architecture. How is Linux behind ?
NT can run on multiple architectures, simply because it has the ability to
do so is the technology, not whether or not it actually is. NT has run on
PPC, MIPS, Alpha, and x86 in shipping production code.
> The WebBench figures that Chad was blathering about put W2K 2%
> behind Linux while running on faster hardware. How does that put
> Linux behind ?
2% is not much of a statistical difference. Most tests have more than a 2%
margin of error. Show me even one commercial server running Tux.
> >> And when it isn't, its criminal behavior, Erik. There is no 'life or
> >> death'. There is competing, and there is monopolizing. If the only
way
> >> MS can 'stay alive' is to monopolize, then they are a criminal
> >> organization. QED.
> >
> Bill had already propositioned Netscape to just divide up the market
> so they would not need to fight so Netscape knew that MS was out to
> "cut off their air supply" from that moment on.
>
> Not taking defensive measures when you are being attacked is not
> healthy.
Yet MS isn't supposed to do the same. Your hypocricy is showing.
> >No, it's not criminal behavior. I see nowhere in the Sherman Act that
> >specifies that.
> >
> The Sherman act does not attempt to enumerate a list of forbidden
> activities any more than the laws against murder attempt to list
> ways in which you are forbidden to kill people.
I didnt' say it did.
> What happens in both cases is that the circumstances are examined
> and the outcome and the intent determines the guilt of the accused.
>
> Neither set of laws are invalid because they do not enumerate the
> infinite ways to break them.
Of course not. However, nowhere can the law be interpreted as saying that
"acting like it's a life or death situation" is criminal.
> >> >> Are you denying that Microsoft has a monopoly ? Or that
monopolies
> >> >> do not charge higher prices than competitors do ?
> >> >
> >> >Apples and Oranges.
> >>
> >> Is that a yes or a no, Erik?
> >
> >I'm saying that determining the price of a product is not so simple as
just
> >comparing two products, since they offer different kinds of
functionality.
> >
> And yet you say they compete ?
They compete in a certain cross section.
> How can they compete for the same customers if the customer cannot
> compare them ?
A customer can only compare the value of a product to themselves. For
instance, a pickup truck can compete with an SUV. They both carry people,
they just offer different sets of extended functionality and are priced
differently because of it.
> >That's two entirely different things. MS's competition is other OS's,
not
> >Windows clones. Stop pretending that lots of other OS's out there aren't
> >more expensive than Windows. They are.
> >
> Diesel trains are more expensive than Dodge trucks and they both
> haul things. Are they competitors ?
See above.
> >> The answer is "no"; TMax Windows would drastically lower the amount
that
> >> MS could charge, as any other _competition_ (note the lack of quotes)
> >> would. This is called 'competitive pricing', and its something MS will
> >> avoid at all costs, including engaging in illegal activity.
> >
> >MS is already priced below the majority of their competition.
> >
> I contend that you are mixing fruit again Erik.
>
> No other OS competes for the desktop. Can't, OEM preloads add the
> cost of whatever MS is calling the Windows desktop this quarter to
> any potential competitors' cost.
Not true. As we've already seen, Linux is being loaded by OEM's without the
cost of Windows. BeOS is offered on certain Hitachi systems, again without
the cost of Windows. IBM *STILL* sells OS/2 on computers without the cost
of windows.
> How can OS/2 or BEos or whatever "compete" when somewhere between
> $40 and $90 gets sent to Redmond for every copy sold ?
That's not been the case for over 6 years.
> Linux does not compete on desktops. You can order machines
> preloaded with Linux from Dell, Gateway, CompaQ, HP, and IBM at
> least, all servers not desktops.
Also untrue. Can you even bother to look this stuff up?
http://www.dell.com/us/en/bsd/topics/segtopic_linux_000_linux_center.htm
http://www.dell.com/us/en/bsd/topics/segtopic_linux_001_linux_center.htm
http://www.compaq.com/products/desktops/linux.html
http://www.linux.hp.com/systems/index.html
> The only MS OS aimed at servers is W2K and it costs several hundred
> on up to thousands of dollars per CPU while Linux is less than two
> hundred even if you take the same CD and install it on dozens of
> eight CPU servers.
Linux is an enigma, and not indicative of everything. A 17 processor
Solaris license costs $60,000, a 65 CPU license $360,000
> Sounds like a large price difference to me.
Linux is not MS's only competition. MacOS X will cost $129 for an upgrade.
> >> Windows is astronomically more expensive than all of its competitors.
> >> If it weren't, they wouldn't need to maintain a monopoly in order to
> >> keep people buying it.
> >
> >The monopoly is BECAUSE people buy it.
> >
> Which conveniently ignores all the Sherman Act violations to keep it
> intact.
Which conveniently assumes that they were necessary to keep it intact.
Something I don't believe. Of course it's just speculation, but claiming
that they were needed is just as much so.
> People "buy" it because avoiding it is almost impossible, not
> because they like monopoly crapware.
Ask any 10 computer owners on the street what OS they want to use. What do
you think most of them will say?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:12:19 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 22 Feb 2001
> >Of course not, but they do have a right to defend themselves from attack.
>
> The only defense they are allowed against competition is competing.
> Monopolizing is not an option, I'm afraid.
Monopolizing is, in fact, an option. What is not is doing so illegally.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RTFM at M$
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 04:05:43 GMT
Brent R wrote:
>
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > Brent R wrote:
> > >
> > > SPAMMERS use that trick a lot. There's also some way to enter in URL as
> > > octal, hex, and binary numbers but I forget how; and there's a way to
> > > 'comment out' characters in the middle of addresses.
> > >
> > > Why browsers allow this is beyond me.
> >
> > Well, if you're going to allow a browser to accept code, shouldn't
> > you also allow it to accept "comments".
> >
> > HAW HAW HAW!!!
> >
> > Chris
>
> NO, I figured that's why it did it, but... why would you need comments
> in a URL?
Because you can sometimes inject code into a URL.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:56:25 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19 Feb 2001 22:09:43 GMT,
Steve Mading, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>: Creating a new group takes all of several seconds.
>
>False. TYPING it takes a few seconds. You aren't taking
>into account talking to the user, getting the list of
>users from him. You also aren't taking into account having
>to keep changing it over and over again when he changes his
>mind, or people move in and out of his project group. The
>time spent on the computer is trivial. The IRL interruptions
>are not.
Simple scripting allows you to automate all of this, with safeguards against
too many groups being created etc. It is easy to setup a system which would
allow joe user to clicky-pointy at a webpage and create, change, and delete
groups that he "owns".
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RTFM at M$
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 04:09:30 -0000
Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Everything you put in a URL before the '@' symbol is ignore by the
>browser! Take this URL for example:
>
>http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>this link goes to my home page.
>
>http://www.hwnd.net/pub/mskb/Q209354.asp is where the article really is.
>It's just some little kiddies playing around (notice the #VB IRC
>channel).
Alas, this page is 404.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pop)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 25 Feb 2001 04:11:58 GMT
In <979tcp$e0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) writes:
>Dan Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: In <978a64$r1q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) writes:
>
>: >Thanks! Fun easier quesation. Why isn't it in degrees as is the standard?
>
>: What standard?!?
>
>The Industry Standard.
Where can I get this standard from?
>While high-end math pros might use radians, normal
>people always use degrees to measure an angle.
Normal people don't normally deal with the sine and cosine values of the
angles they measure.
Degrees are a meaningless unit in trigonometry, which is not exactly
high end math. I've learned most of it in junior high school.
>For all intents and purposes
>degrees IS the standard. Even astronomers use degrees, "minutes", and
>"seconds". As far as I care, degrees, minutes, and seconds ARE the Industry
>Standard. Radians are not.
I was not aware that you're the one who makes the industry standards.
OTOH, *all* the programming languages that I'm familiar with use radians
for the arguments of the trigonometric functions. So, I'm tempted to
believe that they're the standard in the computing industry. I'm also
tempted to believe that there must be a good reason for that.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, IT Division
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail: CERN - IT, Bat. 31 1-014, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 04:12:39 GMT
J Sloan wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> > Bloody Viking wrote:
> >
> > > Here's a chance to correct (and flame) me. Last time I checked, a full circle
> > > is 3.1415926.... radians, that being pi number radians to equal 360 degrees.
> > > Time to add the conversion line to my little programme.
> > >
> >
> > correct. Pi radians = one circle.
>
> I could swear that should be 2 pi radians.
>
> Rough check: 1 radian =~ 57.3 degrees
>
> 2 pi =~ 6.28
>
> 2 pi X 1 radian =~ 360 degrees
>
> jjs
circumfrence = 2*pi*radius
1 radian is the angle subtended by a segment of the circumfrence equal
in length to the radius. Therefore there are 2*pi radians in a circle.
--
Russ Lyttle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Now we know why Allchin was tweaked!
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 04:19:29 -0000
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Solaris is also based on GPL software. There's more GPL'd code in Solaris
>than there is in Windows.
This ought to be verifiable, since the Solaris source is available
under a "community source" license (which does not meet the Open
Source Definition).
You may be thinking of the BSD license; I've read that Solaris is a
BSD derivative.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:27:28 +1300
Hi Erik,
> MS has already stated in several places, including the Whistler SDK
> (available online freely to anyone) that the theming API's would not be
> released. The reason, is that they want to ensure that all themes
> follow the basic windows UI guidelines.
>
> I'm sure MS will license the theme SDK to developers that agree to abide
> by UI guidelines and certify the themes, but that won't happen till at
> least the release of whistler.
I appreciate the confirmation that Microsoft will not be releasing the
theming APIs.
I was silly enough to think that Microsoft no longer practiced hiding API
specifications from the public and developers.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:37:12 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 22 Feb 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >This ignores the fact that MS's software has gone down in price when
you
> >> >factor in inflation, and the amount of software you get per dollar.
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't, though your statement does ignore the fact that it has
> >> not gone down in price at all, nor kept up with the competition in
terms
> >> of the amount of functionality included with the distribution.
> >
> >If the numbers on the price tag stay the same, and inflation goes up.
The
> >dollar value has dropped, and thus the product becomes cheaper.
>
> The dollar value has stayed the same (number on the price tag). If the
> price goes down, it goes down. Otherwise, it has not gone down. The
> price of Windows has not gone down.
The dollar value has not stayed the same over the last 6 years. The value
of the dollar has dropped significantly.
> >> >They react to every situation as a life or death threat, and that
isn't
> >> >always necessary. Sometimes it is, but not always.
> >>
> >> And when it isn't, its criminal behavior, Erik. There is no 'life or
> >> death'. There is competing, and there is monopolizing. If the only
way
> >> MS can 'stay alive' is to monopolize, then they are a criminal
> >> organization. QED.
> >
> >No, it's not criminal behavior. I see nowhere in the Sherman Act that
> >specifies that.
>
> "It is a felony to restrain trade. It is a felony to monopolize, or
> attempt to monopolize." With very little paraphrasing, this is the
> entirety of the Sherman Act. That makes monopolizing a criminal
> behavior.
It is not a felony to monopolize, otheriwse public utilities would be
felonious.
> >I'm saying that determining the price of a product is not so simple as
just
> >comparing two products, since they offer different kinds of
functionality.
>
> So you're saying that you don't understand very much at all about
> anti-trust? Or just that you don't want to say "yes, I am denying it",
> since it would make it too obvious that your only concern is apologizing
> for the Windows monopoly?
I'm saying that DOS and MacOS are two seperate OS's with different
functionality. You can't compare the price exactly. One is worth more than
the other.
> >> What claim? That Windows is priced above competitive levels is a fact,
> >
> >Is it? Then you wouldn't mind stating what the exact competitive price
> >level is. Go ahead. What's the figure?
>
> It is not a figure. The "exact" competitive pricing level is whatever
> it would cost if there were competition.
So in other words, you lied. You claimed that it's a fact that windows is
priced above competitive levels, yet you can't name exactly what the level
would be, since you claim there is no competition.
It's not a fact. You're just assuming the price is higher.
> This is obviously and
> necessarily lower than what it would be were there not competition.
No. The DOJ and Judge Jackson have stated that MS's prices are not
abnormally high, just that they could make them so if they wanted to.
While, yes, you can claim that prices would go lower if there were heavy
competition, that's not always good for the consumer. Companies often go
out of business when margins are too tight, stranding the customer. That's
usually OK for hardware, where the product continues to function, but
Software needs maintenance and security fixes and any number of other active
upgrades to keep it a viable product to use.
> Since there is not competition (MS has more than 95% of the preload
> market) the price for Windows is higher than it would be if there were
> competition.
That's not a fact, that's a guess. The market might not be able to support
much lower costs.
Let me put it this way. MS can afford to put 3 or 4 billion into R&D
because the more software you sell, the lower the per unit price. If MS had
much more competition, and they only had 20% of the market, their per-unit
price would go up substantially, making them have to charge more for the
same levels of R&D or spend less on such things.
Say it costs $5 billion to bring a product to market, and per unit
manufacturing and distribution costs are $10 per unit. If you sell the
product at $90 (average of OEM and retail pricing, including upgrades) it
will take you sales of 62.5 million to recoup your costs, so if you sold
200 million, you make 11 billion.
If your market is now only 40 million due to competition, you lose money in
this scenario, so you either have to spend less on R&D or raise your price.
Competition is *NOT* always good for the consumer.
> >> not a claim. It doesn't have anything to do with the snow-storm you
> >> throw up whenever the subject appears, though. If you could buy
Windows
> >> from either MS or, say, TMax Software Inc., then would MS still be able
> >> to charge the same for their Windows, presuming mine was a suitable
> >> alternative that supported Win32 sufficiently to erase the application
> >> barrier?
> >
> >That's two entirely different things. MS's competition is other OS's,
not
> >Windows clones. Stop pretending that lots of other OS's out there aren't
> >more expensive than Windows. They are.
>
> It makes no difference if other OSes out there are "more expensive than
> Windows" (though, honestly, I know of none). The only thing that
> matters is what Windows costs, and what a "Windows clone" would cost.
> The fact that there are no Windows clones available is a secondary
> issue. Apples and oranges, you might say.
Bullshit. This is not about the cost of a Windows clone.
> MS's competition is any product which exposes APIs, as it might provide
> a means for becoming less dependant on the monopoly Windows OS.
You just said otherwise.
> >> The answer is "no"; TMax Windows would drastically lower the amount
that
> >> MS could charge, as any other _competition_ (note the lack of quotes)
> >> would. This is called 'competitive pricing', and its something MS will
> >> avoid at all costs, including engaging in illegal activity.
> >
> >MS is already priced below the majority of their competition.
>
> Excuse me? What beach provides such an ample amount of sand for burying
> your head in?
I've already provided pricing for competitors OS's.
> >> >> The drama was an attempt to shock you out of your denial.
Obviously
> >> >> it did not work. I'll try to think of something else.
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps you should start by evaluating your own base assumptions.
Windows
> >> >is *NOT* more expensive than most of it's competitors.
> >>
> >> Windows is astronomically more expensive than all of its competitors.
> >> If it weren't, they wouldn't need to maintain a monopoly in order to
> >> keep people buying it.
> >
> >The monopoly is BECAUSE people buy it.
>
> Wow. Was it just you that overturned hundreds of years of economics
> dating back to Adam Smith himself? Or did Bill Gates help?
There is a difference between a product with market power, and a monopoly.
> If the monopoly is because people buy it, Erik, then why does MS have to
> spend so much money making deals to maintain the monopoly? Why would
> "lock in" contracts (complete with Non-Disclosure Agreements) be so
> necessary to Microsoft's strategy?
I don't believe they do have to do such things. I think they do, because
they can. Not because they have to.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:44:06 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:14:22 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:53:50 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >IE would have won on it's merits, without ISP agreements.
>
> BTW, the Findings of Fact quote MS executives to the effect that they
> did not belive this.
I think the evidence was that MS believed they needed more to dislodge
entrenched Netscape users quickly. Another factor was that MS didn't
control the web content, and thus couldn't force users to take advantage of
new features like CSS which Netscape didn't support very well.
> >> >> Then why did MS spend millions to secure such agreements?
> >> >
> >> >Because Netscape was doing the same thing.
> >>
> >> No, they weren't, and never did.
> >
> >NS did in fact have many exclusive contracts with ISP's. I know, I was
> >forced to pay for "startup kits" which included NS and was told by my ISP
> >they were required by contract to provide them to all customers.
>
> You were misinformed then. The deals Netscape offered gave an ISP the
> right to distribute Navigator for either a per-copy price or to
> distribute unlimited copies to their user base for a period of time by
> paying a flat fee. I can understand that a company which had paid $5
> million to Netscape would not be interested in discussing other
> browsers, but the contracts did not prohibit that.
No, my ISP was required to pay NS for each of their users, whether or not we
used or wanted Navigator.
> I ran an ISP from mid-1994 until early 2000, and I clearly recall that
> ISP's were not allowed to distribute Netscape without paying, even
> though individuals could download it for free (technically for a 30-day
> trial period). Netscape was certainly not giving their browser away in
> return for an exclusivity deal prior to MS starting to give IE away.
MS didn't have those exclusive deals with all ISP's either, only a few.
What makes you think NS gave you the same deal they gave everyone?
> They were trying to make money on the browser during this time. It was
> only after MS killed that revenue model that they switched to trying to
> sell servers and made the browser free.
Browsers began as free products. NS tried to turn a free product into a pay
product. It's not surprising they ultimately failed.
> See the Findings of Fact <http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-findings2.html>
> starting from paragraph 250 or so for a discussion of who done what. I
> apparently did mis-remember one thing. The exclusive deals were to get
> listed on the Connection Wizard Referral Server, not just to distribute
> IE. The IE/IAK deals only called for IE to be the "preferred" browser.
> However, the ISP's who got listed on the Referral Server had about 80%
> of the user base.
80%? I doubt that. There are litereally millions of ISP's throughout the
world, and back in 96 there were literally tens of thousands of them in the
US alone.
> The reason that MS spent millions to convince ISP's to give away IE was
> because both ISP's and MS executives believed that Netscape was the
> better product. According to the FoF, MS executives themselves believed
> that IE could not win on merit alone. IE may or may not be better
> _now_, but nobody thought it was better _then_.
Netscape was *NOT* the better product. IE3 and IE4 were roughly equivelant,
but IE4 started leaving Netscape behind in the dust, especially in W3C
standard support.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
