PDA

View Full Version : EU antitrust regulator warns Microsoft over Vista



BoyOfDestiny
March 29th, 2006, 06:46 AM
http://www.finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2006-03/artikel-6204579.asp

Personally I think this would be sweet... Would be a boon to Linux IMHO...

Is it me or does the EU seem perpetually pissed (the american sense, as in upset not drunk) at MS?

mrgnash
March 29th, 2006, 06:50 AM
I have no love for MS or Windows, but I dunno... it all seems a little draconian and interventionist to me. The burden of choice should be on the consumers themselves.

mstlyevil
March 29th, 2006, 06:52 AM
I have no love for MS or Windows, but I dunno... it all seems a little draconian and interventionist to me. The burden of choice should be on the consumers themselves.

I agree completely.

dasunst3r
March 29th, 2006, 07:00 AM
To be honest with you, I actually feel a little bit sorry for Microsoft going through all this.

midwinter
March 29th, 2006, 07:01 AM
I have no love for MS or Windows, but I dunno... it all seems a little draconian and interventionist to me. The burden of choice should be on the consumers themselves.

Agreed.

helpme
March 29th, 2006, 07:23 AM
I have no love for MS or Windows, but I dunno... it all seems a little draconian and interventionist to me. The burden of choice should be on the consumers themselves.
But that's exactly the problem.
With an abusive monopoly, there is no free and fair market and hence no choice. What anti-trust laws try to achieve is making sure that a market exists and consumers have a choice in the first place.

mostwanted
March 29th, 2006, 07:23 AM
Microsoft is the most profitable monopoly in the world an has a history of more or less forcing people into using Microsoft products because they come with Windows. In Europe it's perhaps worse than in the US or other places, since practically every piece of software is dominated by Microsoft (one thing that comes to mind here is the MSN instant messenger which isn't used that much in the US).

Tell me- you don't see a problem with the whole world using only Microsoft applications, Microsoft websites, Microsoft games, Microsoft file formats, etc.? That's the reality we're closing in on. Supply and demand isn't gonna save us here, because as you well know, a monopoly is the one thing that can break a capitalist economy. Such strong monopolies as Microsoft's can't be dissolved by normal means, it's a sad fact but a fact nonetheless.

For this reason I don't see the EU intervention as a bad thing. And I'm a very libertarian person otherwise.

Kimm
March 29th, 2006, 07:28 AM
I feel not a tad bit sad for Microsoft.
They make life worse for other people, by inforcing them to use their products and patenting them so that noone can make alternativies to them.
Its about time someone stands up to them, I'm sure the US would alredy have done so if it wasnt for the fact that MS does bring in alot of money.
Still, MS does break EU law so why should they just stand around and watch?

mstlyevil
March 29th, 2006, 07:43 AM
But that's exactly the problem.
With an abusive monopoly, there is no free and fair market and hence no choice. What anti-trust laws try to achieve is making sure that a market exists and consumers have a choice in the first place.

But antitrust laws should not prevent MSFT fron including the basic tools to protect a PC from nasties out of the box. These should be a part of any operating system. Apple includes these tools and yet the EU is not saying they have to remove them. These tools are also available for every Linux distro for free. Why should users of MSFT OSes be forced to pay for third party tools to protect their pc's? This is unfair treatment of the consumer and not MSFT.

If the EU wants to effectively open up competition here are some suggestions.

1) Out law the special deals that MSFT gives to their prefered vendors like Dell and HP. 2) Force all companies that sell PC's in Europe to offer the consumer the choice between Windows and all Linux OEM distros. 3) MSFT must create a media player for Linux and offer the codecs for free download to those that do not want to use the MSFT Linux player. 4) MSFT must incorporate open standards into all of it's products to ensure cross compatibility with their competitors. 5) All features in Windows that there are third party replacements for must not be intergrated in the kernel and are easily removed by the consumer with no hit in performance.


Those suggestions are just a few I can think of but they force MSFT to play fair and not punish consumers.

Virogenesis
March 29th, 2006, 07:51 AM
apple didn't buy a anti virus company.....
if they add a anti virus software package and integreate it better than anyone else can then no one will buy the other AV availavble

mstlyevil
March 29th, 2006, 07:52 AM
apple didn't buy a anti virus company.....
if they add a anti virus software package and integreate it better than anyone else can then no one will buy the other AV availavble

Vista will not come with an antivirus app even though it should.

nocturn
March 29th, 2006, 07:55 AM
I have no love for MS or Windows, but I dunno... it all seems a little draconian and interventionist to me. The burden of choice should be on the consumers themselves.


Not really, for one, right now consumers do not have a choice. I couldn't even find a laptop without windows XP preinstalled here, though I put Ubuntu on it on first boot.
People that do not want messenger or IE on windows systems can deactivate them, but they will always remain on their systems (no uninstall provided). So installing FireFox or Gaim means you always have both IE and FireFox, or messenger and Gaim, that hurts competition an stiffles innovation.

So, there is a very legitimate concern that Vista will lock out competition even further and that IE7 will force people into using MS search over Google.

Secondly, there are no laws specially tailored against MS here. The laws in question have been arround for a long time and all other branches of industry have had to follow them, so why should MS be any different?

If they do not like the laws in a certain part of the world, they could simply choose to not sell their stuff there.

mostwanted
March 29th, 2006, 07:58 AM
But antitrust laws should not prevent MSFT fron including the basic tools to protect a PC from nasties out of the box. These should be a part of any operating system. Apple includes these tools and yet the EU is not saying they have to remove them. These tools are also available for every Linux distro for free. Why should users of MSFT OSes be forced to pay for third party tools to protect their pc's? This is unfair treatment of the consumer and not MSFT.

1) Repeat after me: MS is a monopoly, Apple is not (something like a sub 1% marketshare in Europe)

2) It's not the inclusion of security tools that's the main problem:

" Kroes's spokesman, Jonathan Todd, was quoted as saying that the EU is concerned about Microsoft's plans for Internet search.

Though Todd did not elaborate, Google Inc and other Internet-search services have said they are concerned that Microsoft could use its Internet Explorer 7 Web browser to unfairly direct computer users to Microsoft's own search service, the Journal noted. "


If the EU wants to effectively open up competition here are some suggestions.

1) Out law the special deals that MSFT gives to their prefered vendors like Dell and HP. 2) Force all companies that sell PC's in Europe to offer the consumer the choice between Windows and all Linux OEM distros. 3) MSFT must create a media player for Linux and offer the codecs for free download to those that do not want to use the MSFT Linux player. 4) MSFT must incorporate open standards into all of it's products to ensure cross compatibility with their competitors. 5) All features in Windows that there are third party replacements for must not be intergrated in the kernel and are easily removed by the consumer with no hit in performance.


Those suggestions are just a few I can think of but they force MSFT to play fair and not punish consumers.

1) Actually, I could imagine such things are already illegal (though perhaps not in all EU nations), but I might be wrong.

2) That's far too authoritarian for my taste.

3) -||-

4) Yes, agreed. I really hope something like this shows up some day. This would have to apply to all in the IT business obviously.

5) That's basically what MS gets bashed the most for. IE 7 won't be integrated into Vista, which is good (in win98 through XP, IE's renderer drew the desktop and therefore IE couldn't be removed).

tom-ubuntu
March 29th, 2006, 08:00 AM
I hope, european politicians have balls (not like the americains) and don't do a step back. Microsoft played enough with them. Either they follow the rules now, or they shouldn't be allowed do sell anything. Would be a big market for Linux :)

helpme
March 29th, 2006, 08:01 AM
But antitrust laws should not prevent MSFT fron including the basic tools to protect a PC from nasties out of the box. These should be a part of any operating system. Apple includes these tools and yet the EU is not saying they have to remove them. These tools are also available for every Linux distro for free. Why should users of MSFT OSes be forced to pay for third party tools to protect their pc's? This is unfair treatment of the consumer and not MSFT.
What are these security tools you are talking about that Apple ships with that MS is not allowed to ship with?
Also, don't forget that Apple is not a monopoly. This makes a world of difference in this case.
And also notice that the article talks mostly about the integration of the MS live services, not about security tools.

nocturn
March 29th, 2006, 08:02 AM
If the EU wants to effectively open up competition here are some suggestions.

1) Out law the special deals that MSFT gives to their prefered vendors like Dell and HP. 2) Force all companies that sell PC's in Europe to offer the consumer the choice between Windows and all Linux OEM distros. 3) MSFT must create a media player for Linux and offer the codecs for free download to those that do not want to use the MSFT Linux player. 4) MSFT must incorporate open standards into all of it's products to ensure cross compatibility with their competitors. 5) All features in Windows that there are third party replacements for must not be intergrated in the kernel and are easily removed by the consumer with no hit in performance.


Those suggestions are just a few I can think of but they force MSFT to play fair and not punish consumers.

Though, I still rather have the current actions then none, I agree 100% with you.

To allow consumers a real choice, the law should force OEM's to unbundle windows from hardware.

vayu
March 29th, 2006, 08:06 AM
If the EU wants to effectively open up competition here are some suggestions.

1) Out law the special deals that MSFT gives to their prefered vendors like Dell and HP. 2) Force all companies that sell PC's in Europe to offer the consumer the choice between Windows and all Linux OEM distros. 3) MSFT must create a media player for Linux and offer the codecs for free download to those that do not want to use the MSFT Linux player. 4) MSFT must incorporate open standards into all of it's products to ensure cross compatibility with their competitors. 5) All features in Windows that there are third party replacements for must not be intergrated in the kernel and are easily removed by the consumer with no hit in performance.


Those suggestions are just a few I can think of but they force MSFT to play fair and not punish consumers.

Right on.

mstlyevil
March 29th, 2006, 08:08 AM
2) It's not the inclusion of security tools that's the main problem:


I read the article and here is a quote from it.


EU regulators have also warned Microsoft against putting certain software-security functions into the Vista system, according to Todd.

Inclusion of security tools is a major problem.


1) Repeat after me: MS is a monopoly, Apple is not (something like a sub 1% marketshare in Europe)

So you are saying we treat Apple different until they are the monopoly? The law should be applied equally to every company to prevent a new monopoly. Apple includes everything a consumer would want right out of the box. None of it is third party software so that is just as anti-competitive. If you have to do it to MSFT, then you have to do it to everyone.

nocturn
March 29th, 2006, 08:10 AM
Apple includes these tools and yet the EU is not saying they have to remove them.

The problem here is that MS is abusing it's monopoly. Apple does not have a monopoly position, therefor they cannot be convicted for abusing it.

helpme
March 29th, 2006, 08:12 AM
So you are saying we treat Apple different until they are the monopoly?

That's what the law is saying. Apple are different as they are no monopoly, hence they are treated differently.



The law should be applied equally to every company to prevent a new monopoly. Apple includes everything a consumer would want right out of the box. None of it is third party software so that is just as anti-competitive. If you have to do it to MSFT, then you have to do it to everyone.
Again, including everything under the sun is not illegal, what is illegal is abusing your monopoly to gain market share in other markets.

mstlyevil
March 29th, 2006, 08:15 AM
What are these security tools you are talking about that Apple ships with that MS is not allowed to ship with?

None at the moment. If the EU regulators have their way Vista will come with none.


Also, don't forget that Apple is not a monopoly. This makes a world of difference in this case.

Read my post above for my reply.


And also notice that the article talks mostly about the integration of the MS live services, not about security tools.

Again, a quote from the article.


EU regulators have also warned Microsoft against putting certain software-security functions into the Vista system, according to Todd.

The article was talking about both.

mstlyevil
March 29th, 2006, 08:18 AM
The problem here is that MS is abusing it's monopoly. Apple does not have a monopoly position, therefor they cannot be convicted for abusing it.

Then new laws need to be passed to effectively prevenet Apple from becoming one. This is precisely what would happen if the current proposals are enforced.

helpme
March 29th, 2006, 08:19 AM
The article was talking about both.
That's why I qualified my statement with mostly. ;)

Also, I was wondering about the security features that Apple is shipping and that MS isn't allowed to ship according to you. It's probably just me being uninformed, but I simply couldn't come up with any.

mstlyevil
March 29th, 2006, 08:21 AM
That's why I qualified my statement with mostly. ;)

Also, I was wondering about the security features that Apple is shipping and that MS isn't allowed to ship according to you. It's probably just me being uninformed, but I simply couldn't come up with any.

And I replied as follows: :mrgreen:


None at the moment. If the EU regulators have their way Vista will come with none.:mrgreen:

helpme
March 29th, 2006, 08:25 AM
And I replied as follows: :mrgreen:

:mrgreen:
Sorry, it's probably down to English not being my first language. What I was wondering about were the Apple security features. So what security feature that Apple ships with were you refering to?



Then new laws need to be passed to effectively prevenet Apple from becoming one. This is precisely what would happen if the current proposals are enforced.
First, I'd venture that the chances of Apple becoming a monopoly in this area are slim at best.
Second, being a monopoly or becoming one is not illegal in itself, abusing a monopoly is.

mstlyevil
March 29th, 2006, 08:32 AM
Sorry, it's probably down to English not being my first language. What I was wondering about were the Apple security features. So what security feature that Apple ships with were you refering to?

They ship with a firewall and antivirus suite.


First, I'd venture that the chances of Apple becoming a monopoly in this area are slim at best.
Second, being a monopoly or becoming one is not illegal in itself, abusing a monopoly is.

First, if you force MSFT to strip Windows to a barebone operating system then Apple will become a monopoly very fast in Europe. There will be no other choice for a fully featured operating system.

Second, why allow another company to become a monopoly in the first place. Change the laws to prevent another monopoly and the abuses that surely will follow.

helpme
March 29th, 2006, 08:42 AM
They ship with a firewall and antivirus suite.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even XP comes with a build in firewall and afaik Vista will ship one too.
As for antivirus, I was not aware of Apple shiping one by default. Are you sure about this.



First, if you force MSFT to strip Windows to a barebone operating system then Apple will become a monopoly very fast in Europe. There will be no other choice for a fully featured operating system.

Frankly, I don't think there's a chance in hell that Apple will become a monopoly, considering that their OS only works on Apple hardware. Also, MS with third party apps (which could of course also be installed by OEMs out of the box) is pretty full featured and you shouldn't forget Linux in the equation.



Second, why allow another company to become a monopoly in the first place. Change the laws to prevent another monopoly and the abuses that surely will follow.
Simple, not allowing companies to become monopoly would mean much more regulation of a free market than probably most people and countries are prepared to exercise.

Virogenesis
March 29th, 2006, 08:50 AM
apple doesn't ship with anti-virus , nor do they make a media player and nd make in incompatiable with other os .

Apple can't become a monopoly like microsoft which is why they can offer serrvices like .mac
To get mac os you have to buy a mac not just a pc bit of a difference

mstlyevil
March 29th, 2006, 08:50 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but even XP comes with a build in firewall and afaik Vista will ship one too.
As for antivirus, I was not aware of Apple shiping one by default. Are you sure about this.

Vista has a full featured bi-directional firewall unlike XP. I am not as sure about the antivirus for Apple, but Windows does not nor will have one in the near future.


Frankly, I don't think there's a chance in hell that Apple will become a monopoly, considering that their OS only works on Apple hardware. Also, MS with third party apps (which could of course also be installed by OEMs out of the box) is pretty full featured and you shouldn't forget Linux in the equation.

Those third party apps cost a lot of money to make Windows as full featured as an Apple. The cost would become prohibitive forcing people to buy an Apple to get what they want. Most consumers do not care that Apples hardware is proprietary. All they care about is the most bang for the buck. Linux lacks too much right now to compete.


Simple, not allowing companies to become monopoly would mean much more regulation of a free market than probably most people and countries are prepared to exercise.

Not really. The suggestions I gave before would do much to make another monopoly a thing of the past without punishing the consumer with higher prices and less features.

nocturn
March 29th, 2006, 08:54 AM
Vista will not come with an antivirus app even though it should.

Actually, I would rather see MS offer the app for download, but for free.

After all, AV is fixing a problem they created and having to pay again to the same company that caused the problem in the first place is not really fair.

mstlyevil
March 29th, 2006, 08:58 AM
Actually, I would rather see MS offer the app for download, but for free.

After all, AV is fixing a problem they created and having to pay again to the same company that caused the problem in the first place is not really fair.

I can agree with this.

mrgnash
March 29th, 2006, 09:01 AM
Apple? Apple take anti-competitive behaviour even further than Microsoft with their horrid DRM. They make it so that the videos you legitimately pay for and download from them can only be played within iTunes or Quicktime. Apple may not be a monopoly when it comes to the OS world, but can you think of a service which rivals the whole iTunes/iPod thing?

On that basis, I see no reason why the EU should ignore Apple's business practices while attacking MS.

halfvolle melk
March 29th, 2006, 09:35 AM
I could be wrong, but I don't think the "software-security" has anything to do with firewalls or virusscanners. I think it has to do with stuff like Kerberos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerberos_%28protocol%29
Copyrighted so noone (3rd party) is allowed to write something that interfaces with it. This effectively means that secure communication with a MS machine requires you to buy your own.

nocturn
March 29th, 2006, 11:47 AM
They ship with a firewall and antivirus suite.


I higly doubt that OS X has an AV application.

Apple does have a builtin firewall, I think it is part of the BSD code they use. But so does windows XP, and I don't think that is what the EU wants stripped out of Vista.

Apple however does not ship with a proprietary IM solution or a Media Player that locks people to their platform...

mostwanted
March 29th, 2006, 12:07 PM
I higly doubt that OS X has an AV application.

Apple does have a builtin firewall, I think it is part of the BSD code they use. But so does windows XP, and I don't think that is what the EU wants stripped out of Vista.

Apple however does not ship with a proprietary IM solution or a Media Player that locks people to their platform...

They do ship with a proprietary IM solution; iChat is a closed-source program with a protocol based on AOL.

blueturtl
March 29th, 2006, 02:32 PM
First, if you force MSFT to strip Windows to a barebone operating system then Apple will become a monopoly very fast in Europe. There will be no other choice for a fully featured operating system.

The original trials held in the US were not to disable or remove Internet Explorer altogether but to give users the option of uninstalling or not installing it in the first place. This does not inhibit people from getting a fully featured product, because users also get the choice of installing that something if they want. The trials failed in the US because of Microsoft's powerful influence, but we haven't lost the battle for fair game here in Europe yet.

The EU has been rather tough-handed with Microsoft, but for the most part they are on the right track. Some ideas are not so well thought out. If they indeed wish to remove all the beforementioned functions instead of giving users the option of removing or replacing them, then they are on the wrong track. However giving the users the right to deselect Windows Media Player, IE, Messenger, etc during installation does not hinder fair competition in any way.


Those third party apps cost a lot of money to make Windows as full featured as an Apple. The cost would become prohibitive forcing people to buy an Apple to get what they want.

So you're thinking Microsoft should keep charging these incredibly high prices for it's OS it does now? And people really want to pay high monthly subscription fees for an AV when they can get an OS that does not require one for less? Of course if there were fair competition Microsoft would have to lower it's prices to be able to compete with Apple. So would the 3rd party app vendors. That's the whole point; it's called competition, the basic pillar of capitalism. ](*,)

No one would be forced to buy Apple's, but they'd sure as hell consider them more often. And Apple's would be bought until something better came along.

Also, all companies are not alike. Apple had it's chance to become a dominant platform. They were way ahead of MS for years! If they worked and acted as MS does they'd have stiffled MS early on when they were weak and they'd already be in Microsoft's shoes.

I haven't even touches Linux which is more fully featured then either Apple or MS and yet it carries the most modest price tag. Now ain't that good competition? ;)

Gijith
March 29th, 2006, 05:07 PM
I'm gonna join in with the people who think this is all BS. Microsoft makes a product. More than 90% of computer users buy it. They have to be allowed to provide a good OS to their consumers, which means bundling software. A Windows user isn't really committed to any of that software. They can change it around however they like. And like everyone's said, other OSes do the same thing. A company shouldn't be punished just for being successful.

I find it sort of ridiculous. If these governments were really concerned about Microsoft, why are they using Windows? Almost any government office in any country will be running Microsoft software. If they want to keep things in check, put Linux in every school.

ComplexNumber
March 29th, 2006, 05:19 PM
If these governments were really concerned about Microsoft, why are they using Windows? Almost any government office in any country will be running Microsoft software. they're not. in many, if not most, european countries, more than 50% of them are running linux.

jc87
March 29th, 2006, 05:19 PM
I'm gonna join in with the people who think this is all BS. Microsoft makes a product. More than 90% of computer users buy it. They have to be allowed to provide a good OS to their consumers, which means bundling software. A Windows user isn't really committed to any of that software. They can change it around however they like. And like everyone's said, other OSes do the same thing. A company shouldn't be punished just for being successful.

I find it sort of ridiculous. If these governments were really concerned about Microsoft, why are they using Windows? Almost any government office in any country will be running Microsoft software. If they want to keep things in check, put Linux in every school.

You are missing the point , can you uninstall IE or WMP? that is the real problem , you canīt , they could easily fix this if they made thoose components instalation optional.... that way would be 100% up to the consumer to use them or not , the problem is not the bundling , is that they force to install the full M$ bundle.

Gijith
March 29th, 2006, 05:26 PM
It is 100% up to the consumer. Are you forced to use IE or WMP? I'm not. I been using Firefox and Winamp for years.

bonzodog
March 29th, 2006, 05:37 PM
I for one would not be sad to see MS stop shipping their products here.
The EU is very pro OSS and Open Standards. You have to remember also that you are dealing with central europe which has always been very slightly anti- american, and France and Germany are the 2 big hitters in the EU parliament. The EU are pushing strongly for FLOSS adoption in government departments throughout Northern Europe, and the idea is being taken up rapidly.
The EU see's MS as an un-needed/unwanted tax by the Americans, and have decided that their voice will be heard, and the European Continent will be taken seriously by the Americans as an economic force to be reckoned with. To this end, they are attempting to push a lot of other countries in Asia/Africa and the Middle East to do their primary business dealings in Euros rather than the dollar.
Russia already deals more in Euros than the dollar.

mostwanted
March 29th, 2006, 05:40 PM
I'm gonna join in with the people who think this is all BS. Microsoft makes a product. More than 90% of computer users buy it. They have to be allowed to provide a good OS to their consumers, which means bundling software. A Windows user isn't really committed to any of that software. They can change it around however they like. And like everyone's said, other OSes do the same thing. A company shouldn't be punished just for being successful.

It should when it has come to the degree where the majority of the population of Europe are checking into schools, work places and home offices every day dominated by Microsoft. When you have a market economy totally without any rules and regulations you'll end up with monopolies, and in effect these monopolised markets provide nothing much different from what you'd get under a state monopoly ā la the Soviet Union. I am distressed that you can swoop this away as "punishment for being succesful", this is not peanuts!

And no, they can't change components around however they like. There are articifical restrictions for removing media player in a normal windows installation for instance. IE can't be removed either.


I find it sort of ridiculous. If these governments were really concerned about Microsoft, why are they using Windows? Almost any government office in any country will be running Microsoft software. If they want to keep things in check, put Linux in every school.

It's funny, you answer your own question right after you ask it: why are they using Windows? Almost any government office in any country will be running Microsoft software.

... because MS is a monopoly. A monopoly on software... not just on the core OS itself, but rather the combination of Windows and MS Office, Outlook, IE, etc. coupled with Microsofts proprietary data formats.

mostwanted
March 29th, 2006, 05:43 PM
they're not. in many, if not most, european countries, more than 50% of them are running linux.

50% of the European countries might be running Linux, but that'll be on an extremely small scale.

Gijith
March 29th, 2006, 05:50 PM
It should when it has come to the degree where the
... because MS is a monopoly. A monopoly on software... not just on the core OS itself, but rather the combination of Windows and MS Office, Outlook, IE, etc. coupled with Microsofts proprietary data formats.

Are you saying that it would be impossible for schools or government offices to use a Linux distro or Mac OS?

ComplexNumber
March 29th, 2006, 05:54 PM
50% of the European countries might be running Linux, but that'll be on an extremely small scale. i didn't say 50% of the countries. i said more than 50% of the government agencies in any particular country. for example, in france, linux is used on 71% of goverment agencies, germany has more than 68% linux deployment, etc. the UK has 33% linux deployment, but that is far behind most of the other european countries.

mostwanted
March 29th, 2006, 05:54 PM
Are you saying that it would be impossible for schools or government offices to use a Linux distro or Mac OS?

Not impossible, just very, very hard, considering practically every work place uses Microsoft data formats and Microsoft applications.

mostwanted
March 29th, 2006, 05:56 PM
i didn't say 50% of the countries. i said more than 50% of the government agencies in any particular country.

Ok, I have a hard time believing that figure. It's most certainly not the case in Denmark. Can you back it up with some statistics or are you just guessing?

midwinter
March 29th, 2006, 05:57 PM
Seems to me like they get punished for being successful.. crazy.

ComplexNumber
March 29th, 2006, 05:58 PM
Ok, I have a hard time believing that figure. It's most certainly not the case in Denmark. Can you back it up with some statistics or are you just guessing? you can read about it here if you want:

And it’s used by a third of UK local authorities, though that’s still way behind France’s 71, Germany’s 68 and Holland’s 55 per cent.
http://www.themanufacturer.com/britishindustry/content_page.html?article_id=559

mostwanted
March 29th, 2006, 06:08 PM
you can read about it here if you want:

http://www.themanufacturer.com/britishindustry/content_page.html?article_id=559

I must say, I still have a hard time believing those figures. Such a large scale adoption has gone completely unnoticed?

Nothing about that here for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_adoption#Linux_adoption_in_Government

ComplexNumber
March 29th, 2006, 06:14 PM
I must say, I still have a hard time believing those figures. Such a large scale adoption has gone completely unnoticed?

Nothing about that here for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_adoption#Linux_adoption_in_Government
when i find them again, i will show you the other links that back it up.

Virogenesis
March 29th, 2006, 06:21 PM
Gijith, look up vendor lock in they are successful for reason other than n good software did you know mac intel are unable to play wmv right now?

Tried opening a acccess db and saving using linux??
This is fantastic news for euros it gives the consumer a choice between ie an firefox
Gijith does winamp integrate into windows like media player

Gijith
March 29th, 2006, 06:40 PM
Gijith, look up vendor lock in they are successful for reason other than n good software did you know mac intel are unable to play wmv right now?

Tried opening a acccess db and saving using linux??
This is fantastic news for euros it gives the consumer a choice between ie an firefox
Gijith does winamp integrate into windows like media player

I'm not thrilled about vendor lock. And if governments wanted to introduce that kind of litigation, I might be a little more sympathetic.

I thought MS and Apple just worked out a deal to have windows formats supported by quicktime? Or was that just wma?

Nope, never tried to open a db file.

Consumers already have choice between IE and Firefox.

In terms of Winamp, what kind of integration are you talking about? What features?

Virogenesis
March 29th, 2006, 07:03 PM
Consumers already have choice between IE and Firefox.

----
Sure they do when MS don't stick to standards...

Microsoft have stated apple users have to wait as they aerre working on vista but this is out of order.

Media player integrates into the windows shell well and as winamp doesn't i if you install something that the user can't remove then the user is more than likely to use that and media players deals with streaming it creates a stronghold that linux desktops can't get a piece of the action.