PDA

View Full Version : What if Canonical signed a Novell-like deal with Microsoft?



dspari1
May 18th, 2007, 03:58 AM
Since Microsoft seems to have declared war on Linux, distros will soon have the choice between caving in like Novell did or fight against the corporate giant in court. What would you do if Canonical caves in?

I'll start:
I think I would just switch to BSD because if Canonical signs on with Microsoft, how many other Linux distros would do the same? I would rather just do a drastic change and not worry about being sued or having my distro of choice paying royalties to Microsoft.

steven8
May 18th, 2007, 04:46 AM
I would switch distros. I am here because of Microsoft. I want nothing to do with them.

yatt
May 18th, 2007, 04:52 AM
I'd probably go to Debian or Sabayon or something.

towsonu2003
May 18th, 2007, 04:53 AM
I would switch distros. I am here because of Microsoft. I want nothing to do with them.

+1 (probably to Debian)

and I wouldn't want to be associated with a distro that promotes and gives precedence to fud.

Sand Lee
May 18th, 2007, 04:57 AM
Debian FTW!!

icecruncher
May 18th, 2007, 05:17 AM
Switch to another distro for the last time. (the last move was from suse to ubuntu)
then if it happnes agian, switch to bsd!!

jsmidt
May 18th, 2007, 05:17 AM
Debian all the way.

earobinson
May 18th, 2007, 05:17 AM
I would strongly consider switching to debian or fedora

dspari1
May 18th, 2007, 05:24 AM
Switch to another distro for the last time. (the last move was from suse to ubuntu)
then if it happnes agian, switch to bsd!!

That is what I feel most Linux users will do if enough distros cave in.

joe.turion64x2
May 18th, 2007, 05:30 AM
Switch to another Linux distro, PCLinuxOS perhaps. I like the easiness Ubuntu provides (that is why I installed it in my laptop) however most of my stuff is done in Fedora so...I would not care a lot to change my 'backdoor' Linux.

mills
May 18th, 2007, 05:45 AM
didnt stallman bring out a new version of the gpl to stop that happening again?

anyway id stick with ubuntu, i got nothing against microsoft

aysiu
May 18th, 2007, 05:54 AM
I'd encourage Ian Murdock to send an email to the Ubuntu developers mailing list asking them to leave Ubuntu for straight-up Debian.

Something like this (http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2006-11/msg03765.html).

earobinson
May 18th, 2007, 06:07 AM
I'd encourage Ian Murdock to send an email to the Ubuntu developers mailing list asking them to leave Ubuntu for straight-up Debian.

Something like this (http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2006-11/msg03765.html).
Snap

B0rsuk
May 18th, 2007, 06:09 AM
I would switch to Debian even faster. Now I'm waiting for new hardware (actually, for Enemy Territory:Quake Wars and linux client). With a deal like Novell's, I wouldn't wait at all.

Suse = MS Linux

dspari1
May 18th, 2007, 06:20 AM
I'd encourage Ian Murdock to send an email to the Ubuntu developers mailing list asking them to leave Ubuntu for straight-up Debian.

Something like this (http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2006-11/msg03765.html).


The Kubuntu team is hosting some
events during the week to look at KDE and Ubuntu and to discuss the
roadmap of their project.

So Mark Shuttleworth is inviting the SuSE devs to work specifically for Kubuntu? I want to make sure I'm comprehending this correctly.

riven0
May 18th, 2007, 06:35 AM
As much as I love Ubuntu, that'll be one action I just could not support. It'll be off to Debian or ArchLinux for me.

karellen
May 18th, 2007, 06:52 AM
I wouldn't care. I would stay with ubuntu as long I'll like it

warp99
May 18th, 2007, 06:55 AM
I don't think we have to worry about a deal with Canoncial any time soon. Remember the debacle over Mark Shuttleworth's comments on the MS-Novell deal to OpenSuse developers:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061125-8286.html

Plus Canonical recently signed a license agreement with the Open Invention Network (OIN) for IP protection:

http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/press_release04_17_07.php

I don't believe any time soon Shutteworth is going to pay "tribute" to MS in any way, shape, or form. ;)

WalmartSniperLX
May 18th, 2007, 07:36 AM
Woah I wouldn't really care. I would probably stay with Ubuntu. Then again I don't run Ubuntu except on my other pc which isn't plugged in :P. Ubuntu is great, I don't know why a deal with MS would cause people to want to switch. Who cares. The worst thing MS did to most of you (who hate it) was enforce laws and produce software that everyone BY CHOICE wants to use and support. As far as malicious software goes, it isn't MS fault. MS is getting dirty with some competition lock-out. But, so far I haven't seen any illegal tactics. People choose to use MS. People choose not to. I'm tired of all the hatred.

Don't get me wrong I'm not a MS fanboy. I have a plan to never use windows again in my life. I like Linux more, but I don't HATE ms. Just my opinion.

But my most honest answer would be:
Keep using Fedora.

jbro
May 18th, 2007, 08:10 AM
I used to use OpenSUSE -- everything worked, it was polished and pretty easy to use. Then Novell signed that infamous deal with Microsoft. At first, I said I don't care, SUSE works for me, but then I began to feel an uneasiness about using it. I don't hate MS and I still have to use Windows for some (work) things, but something was just not right. Because of that I've returned to Ubuntu and if it works as well for me as OpenSUSE does I'll keep using it.

Now were Canonical to cave to Microsoft, I'm sure I'd feel the same uneasiness again. I'd probably switch to Fedora. RedHat seems to have taken a fairly strong stand against MS's claims.

Regards,
jbro

Kvark
May 18th, 2007, 08:10 AM
I'd switch to another distro. The problem is patent royalties for GPL'd code. What if you wanted to start your own distro based on Suse? Since Novell pays patent royalties to Microsoft for Suse it's only logical that you'd have to do the same. Since your distro starts out as a copy of Suse it obviously uses the same patents that Novell are paying for. But if you can't afford that it means you are not allowed to modify Suse even though the GPL says you have the right to do so.

As for switching to BSD, they probably step on a lot of patents too.

That the deal is with Microsoft is not a problem at all though. I love another part of the Novell deal, that Microsoft started selling over 10k Suse subscriptions per month and the sales will probably accellerate. I never thought I'd see Microsoft selling Linux!
:lolflag:

I wouldn't mind if Microsoft started selling 10k+ subscriptions per month for proffesional Ubuntu support from Canonical too, as long as the deal doesn't imply that you'd have to pay royalties to get permission to modify Ubuntu.

Lucifiel
May 18th, 2007, 08:33 AM
Hmmm... I think Mark has balls made of steel and he won't give in anytime to Bill Gates.

In short, expect a struggle between 2 titans if Microsoft tries to push itself onto Canonical.

Bill Gates versus Mark Shuttleworth!!!!

Round one.... FIGHT! :D

Spr0k3t
May 18th, 2007, 10:12 AM
If this were to happen, I would dump Ubuntu for Debian. Microsoft and I have a love hate relationship... they love themselves too much and I hate them. Maybe hate isn't a strong enough word, loathe?

UbuntuniX
May 18th, 2007, 10:18 AM
I'd go to Debian, Gentoo, or a BSD distro.

mybunche
May 18th, 2007, 10:33 AM
I'm also here because of microsoft and I love what Ubuntu is doing. But if that ever happens (it won't), I'll try BSD.

koshatnik
May 18th, 2007, 10:42 AM
I don't understand - "cave in to microsoft" - over what? MS has sod all on linux. What's the issue here?

Jhongy
May 18th, 2007, 11:33 AM
Woah I wouldn't really care. I would probably stay with Ubuntu. Then again I don't run Ubuntu except on my other pc which isn't plugged in :P. Ubuntu is great, I don't know why a deal with MS would cause people to want to switch. Who cares. The worst thing MS did to most of you (who hate it) was enforce laws and produce software that everyone BY CHOICE wants to use and support. As far as malicious software goes, it isn't MS fault. MS is getting dirty with some competition lock-out. But, so far I haven't seen any illegal tactics. People choose to use MS. People choose not to. I'm tired of all the hatred.

Don't get me wrong I'm not a MS fanboy. I have a plan to never use windows again in my life. I like Linux more, but I don't HATE ms. Just my opinion.

But my most honest answer would be:
Keep using Fedora.

Actually, the entire debacle is -- to me -- looking very much like a protection racket. "Pay up, or face off with the most powerful legal department in the industry".

It cannot really be proven as such unless the patent claim can be thrown out. But we all know that idea patents on OSes are for the most part ridiculous and frivolous -- and Microsoft *still* hasn't provided any proof of infringement.

The protection racket wouldn't even work if they hadn't found a company to legitimise their claims. So they found ailing Novell, and paid them a balance of 200-odd million dollars to get the ball rolling.

Since then, a bunch of companies using Linux have caved in -- Wal-mart, Dell (tellingly, right after their deal with Canonical), many others.

They're the biggest bully in town, running a scheme that looks like a protection racket, plain and simple. If that's not illegal, it's sure as hell on the fringes of the law, eh?

It sure looks similar to bullies shaking down kids in the schoolyard for cash.

This is more than just Linux fanboys hating Windows.

brim4brim
May 18th, 2007, 11:43 AM
I wouldn't care as long as Ubuntu still just worked for me. The reason I use Windows less and less is because its just a pain to live with every day. Ubuntu doesn't have that problem and as long as it doesn't, I'll be using it.

samjh
May 18th, 2007, 11:48 AM
I'd stay with Ubuntu.

I don't really have a problem with the Novell-Microsoft deal. Although it may seem like Novell is giving Microsoft support for its patent infringement claims, there is nothing legally substantial about that.

Switching to something like BSD or OpenSolaris won't do much good, if Microsoft manages to win a significant number of patent claims against Linux in court. BSD and OpenSolaris share large chunks of code and supporting system software with Linux, so Microsoft could probably succeed in oppressing BSD and OpenSolaris too.

If Linux-related open source operating systems are to survive. Linux will need to win, or at least survive against Microsoft's claims in court. Otherwise, doom will be nigh for any Linux-related open source operating system.

floke
May 18th, 2007, 12:00 PM
I'd encourage Ian Murdock to send an email to the Ubuntu developers mailing list asking them to leave Ubuntu for straight-up Debian.

Something like this (http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2006-11/msg03765.html).

Murdock isn't involved with Debain anymore AFAIK (interview in latest LinuxFormat) - but it would still be funny.


so far I haven't seen any illegal tactics. People choose to use MS. People choose not to. I'm tired of all the hatred.


You do know that MS were prosecuted and found guilty by the USJD, and that they've also been found guilty of monopolistic practices by the European Commission? Sounds pretty illegal to me.


If this were to happen, I would dump Ubuntu for Debian. Microsoft and I have a love hate relationship... they love themselves too much and I hate them. Maybe hate isn't a strong enough word, loathe?

I like revile.

lepz
May 18th, 2007, 12:07 PM
Like most posters I would switch distro.

Lux Perpetua
May 18th, 2007, 12:09 PM
I'd encourage Ian Murdock to send an email to the Ubuntu developers mailing list asking them to leave Ubuntu for straight-up Debian.

Something like this (http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2006-11/msg03765.html).Considering who wrote that letter, isn't this topic rather pointless?

Pobega
May 18th, 2007, 12:31 PM
I'd probably just stop coming to the forums, and stop recommending Ubuntu to people.

Microsoft spells trouble, I still wonder why Novell would even think of signing a deal with them...To protect their commercial users from ******** patents? Nah, it has to be more than that.

Sunflower1970
May 18th, 2007, 12:50 PM
I'd also switch. I'd stick with Ubuntu for a time as I "shopped" around for another distro I felt most comfortable with as I do with Ubuntu. But, Microsoft was one of the big reasons I started to use Linux.

Jhongy
May 18th, 2007, 01:11 PM
Microsoft spells trouble, I still wonder why Novell would even think of signing a deal with them...To protect their commercial users from ******** patents? Nah, it has to be more than that.

Yup. $200m.

Eddie Wilson
May 18th, 2007, 01:38 PM
I would switch linux distro to start with and then see what happens. I wouldn't go to a Mac. Apple is as bad as Microsoft. There os is better but their hardware is special like their software.
Eddie

DivideXzero
May 18th, 2007, 01:46 PM
@Pobega
Sure there is more to it. The number one thing it has to do with is money.
Microsoft is using a report thats tells a totally different story then what they are stating. In the report it says Linux is less likely to be in violation of patents. The truth of the matter is Microsoft is running on F.U.D. If they act then IBM will file claims against Microsoft. It would set the software industry back years. And this is why software patents are dangerous.

Adamant1988
May 18th, 2007, 02:25 PM
Since Microsoft seems to have declared war on Linux, distros will soon have the choice between caving in like Novell did or fight against the corporate giant in court. What would you do if Canonical caves in?

I'll start:
I think I would just switch to BSD because if Canonical signs on with Microsoft, how many other Linux distros would do the same? I would rather just do a drastic change and not worry about being sued or having my distro of choice paying royalties to Microsoft.

You don't need to worry about this as Canonical is now a member of the OIN. 'Intellectual Property' is not a threat to Ubuntu or it's users now, as the OIN 'stands ready to leverage it's portfolio' whenever the need arises.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also want to clear up some of the FUD surrounding Novell's deal with Microsoft.

1) The deal arose because Novell is a business, they were looking to compete with Red Hat by offering greater interoperability with Microsoft products so that they would be able to encourage people to use their version of Linux on that basis. The patent portion of the deal arose because Microsoft refused to come to the table without it, in the end Novell's patent agreement was favorable for customers (many of which who concerned themselves with the patent FUD) and gave them a sense of security.

2) The payment to Novell was calculated based on the fact that Microsoft knows Novell owns 'Intellectual Property' that Microsoft infringes upon, and sought to protect it's customers from the same.

If you would read the recent article from CNN you would know all this though... Yes, yes, I know it's a bit of a stretch to ask you all to actually read something for yourselves and come up with your own opinion rather than believing all the FUD that goes flying around the forums in neat, single sentence/paragraph, form.
LINK to story (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/)

lyceum
May 18th, 2007, 02:45 PM
I think MS has given up on this idea.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,131984-c,opensource/article.html

I am not sure what there new plans are, but I do think that they know they are blowing smoke and are trying to move to a "Plan B" of some sort. What that is, I do not know.

That being said, I do not think Canonical will ever make a deal with MS. That would now be a good fix for bug #1.

Incάnus
May 18th, 2007, 02:51 PM
Hi, don't know if this is relevant.

Long-time Debianite, but in recent years a convert to SuSE on objective technical grounds, and now I am here - not through a knee-jerk reaction, but through a series of uninteresting circumstances/conversations stemming from The Deal.

I'm still now going through the agonizing process of tearing myself away from a distro I've grown to love.

I must say that as a refugee, I find it's still hard to get used to the move (I'll be candid with you, I still can't bring myself to delete my SuSE. Don't flame me - I'm sure many would be the same if it were Ubuntu :p ), and to get used to all those warm fuzzy feelings about the distro and about Novell vanishing, and all sorts of community unhappiness and unpleasantness.

I wouldn't wish it on this community at all, but I hope that Microsoft's misguided attitude will bring it to a head in court before it gets near Canonical.


Anyway, my 2 cents. Forgive me if I'm speaking out of turn, it just seemed appropriate to post it here. :)


PS: One thing I will say, the community needs to be aware that it's under attack, and that we must come to the aid of each other because nobody else will.. If, as seems likely, Red Hat comes under attack for its fair and honest stance, I'd consider it an attack on all users of Linux - even though I don't like using their distro very much. :(

PPS:


The worst thing MS did to most of you (who hate it) was enforce laws and produce software that everyone BY CHOICE wants to use and support. As far as malicious software goes, it isn't MS fault. MS is getting dirty with some competition lock-out. But, so far I haven't seen any illegal tactics. People choose to use MS. People choose not to.

Where on earth did you get these preposterous ideas from?

A cursory google will throw up a weight of documented record, like court findings, subpoena'd evidence and so on, which fly in the face of what you're saying.

I don't mean to be too adversarial, I'm just saying - if you're going to act like people are just "hating" something irrationally, you can't just throw the actual facts out of the window as a starting point, sorry.

stalker145
May 18th, 2007, 02:59 PM
If it came down to it, I would stick with Ubuntu until such a time as the distro started using practices/software the way MS does. At that point, I would have to become a vagabond again...

Ozor Mox
May 18th, 2007, 03:18 PM
I'd seriously consider switching to another operating system, probably Debian. I don't hate Microsoft, but I don't like what they are trying to do to open source software and Linux at all and I think it's important to support the distributions that don't go along with this.

Seriously though, this will never happen. Why would Mark Shuttleworth post on an openSUSE mailing list attracting developers over his dislike of the Novell/Microsoft deal and why would there be a bug #1 in the bug tracker if Canonical were going to go that route? It would surely damage the distribution quite severely.

Incidentally, I don't think I'd go back to the Windows operating system unless I couldn't get a workable system without installing it.

BarfBag
May 18th, 2007, 04:02 PM
I'd either switch to Debian or Arch. Arch is actually my distro of choice, but I find apt-get more secure then pacman.

bonzodog
May 18th, 2007, 04:38 PM
Ok, people are forgetting one *major* fact in all of this: The Patents are invalid outside US territory!

Ubuntu is part of Canonical, which, in turn, is based on the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man is not in the EU, it just trades with it, is not subject to UK law, people setting up there do not have to pay corporation tax. The island is a protected haven of sorts. The only reason Novell caved in is because they are US based.

They have quite cleverly kept a large part of Suse in Germany where it started.

Not just that, but if MS ever did start making it's threats real, and IBM decided to weigh in, guess what the First thing that IBM would fire at MS is?

Thats right, a Cease And Desist order against Microsoft for worldwide distribution of the Windows Operating system, and MS Office, Exchange, and Server 2003.

Then, IBM would pull the case out over a few years with legal and technical details, all the while preventing MS from shipping a Windows OS, or *any* products at all. That includes hardware AND software of all sorts, as IBM have patents on a lot of things that MS build and ship.

Likewise, I can see MS putting an order of the same magnitude onto the US Linux vendors. They cannot touch the EU/Asian based distros as Software patents are not recognised here, and that includes Ubuntu, as it's a European Distro.

prizrak
May 18th, 2007, 04:50 PM
As "bad" as it may sound I will stick with what works, just happens to be Ubuntu right now. If such a deal would improve certain aspects such as ACPI and driver interoperability I would have very little reason to go somewhere else.

Cheizzz
May 18th, 2007, 05:01 PM
I find it remarkable that people would reject any at all with microsoft.
I mean, how can you reject something if you do not know anything about it?

For me, the contents of the deal would be important.
Why should I switch when canonical and microsoft sign a deal where the former helps the latter embrace open-source and where microsoft renounces all its vile patents and evil thingies for permission to build the next windows on an ubuntu base?
I mean, who would say "no" to that? :)

starcraft.man
May 18th, 2007, 06:30 PM
Ummm... no offence Cheizzz but any deal only benefits MS, they would never abandon their thousands of patents or open source even one iotta of their kernel/proprietary code. MS only wants to ruin their competition with FUD, or by making a deal "OWN" them and their distribution. Theres no point innovating when you can just bully your competition out of existence.

Anyway, unlike the rest of people it seems... I have faith that Cannonical would NEVER do what Novell did, and since the GPLv3 comes through soon it will be impossible anyway for future deals. Not to mention should parts of linux kernel and other fundamental code move up to the third license, Novell will likely run into trouble continuing to distribute linux and since MS has become a distributor of Novell's product, given their thousands of coupons they are reselling, they appear in all respects to have voided their claims of patent infringement by becoming a distributor of what they despise most(at least from what I've read on the GPLv3). I love the irony :)

I don't like what ifs, I deal with fact and whats happened. I'm here and currently theres no deal with MS, nor do I forsee any.

Oh and one more note Cheizzz, MS has already patented a means of a modular product/services more similar to ubuntu with heavy amounts of DRM built in, to limit everything you can do on their next version. I don't think they'll make anything as free as Ubuntu ever, those times died with XP when they began to bow to the corporate world and stopped caring about what a user can do.

dspari1
May 19th, 2007, 03:09 AM
You don't need to worry about this as Canonical is now a member of the OIN. 'Intellectual Property' is not a threat to Ubuntu or it's users now, as the OIN 'stands ready to leverage it's portfolio' whenever the need arises.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also want to clear up some of the FUD surrounding Novell's deal with Microsoft.

1) The deal arose because Novell is a business, they were looking to compete with Red Hat by offering greater interoperability with Microsoft products so that they would be able to encourage people to use their version of Linux on that basis. The patent portion of the deal arose because Microsoft refused to come to the table without it, in the end Novell's patent agreement was favorable for customers (many of which who concerned themselves with the patent FUD) and gave them a sense of security.

2) The payment to Novell was calculated based on the fact that Microsoft knows Novell owns 'Intellectual Property' that Microsoft infringes upon, and sought to protect it's customers from the same.

If you would read the recent article from CNN you would know all this though... Yes, yes, I know it's a bit of a stretch to ask you all to actually read something for yourselves and come up with your own opinion rather than believing all the FUD that goes flying around the forums in neat, single sentence/paragraph, form.
LINK to story (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/)

Thanks, that's quite a good read. I did not know about the OIN.

dspari1
May 19th, 2007, 03:33 AM
Ummm... no offence Cheizzz but any deal only benefits MS, they would never abandon their thousands of patents or open source even one iotta of their kernel/proprietary code. MS only wants to ruin their competition with FUD, or by making a deal "OWN" them and their distribution. Theres no point innovating when you can just bully your competition out of existence.

Anyway, unlike the rest of people it seems... I have faith that Cannonical would NEVER do what Novell did, and since the GPLv3 comes through soon it will be impossible anyway for future deals. Not to mention should parts of linux kernel and other fundamental code move up to the third license, Novell will likely run into trouble continuing to distribute linux and since MS has become a distributor of Novell's product, given their thousands of coupons they are reselling, they appear in all respects to have voided their claims of patent infringement by becoming a distributor of what they despise most(at least from what I've read on the GPLv3). I love the irony :)

I don't like what ifs, I deal with fact and whats happened. I'm here and currently theres no deal with MS, nor do I forsee any.

Oh and one more note Cheizzz, MS has already patented a means of a modular product/services more similar to ubuntu with heavy amounts of DRM built in, to limit everything you can do on their next version. I don't think they'll make anything as free as Ubuntu ever, those times died with XP when they began to bow to the corporate world and stopped caring about what a user can do.

Don't take it as an insult because that is not what I am aiming for, but how do you play starcraft without thinking about "what ifs"? I have no idea of how I would plan things without thinking about "what ifs", but to each his own I guess.

I did not mean to come across as if Canonical is definitely going to sign a deal with Microsoft, but I do feel that Microsoft will go up against Ubuntu sooner rather than later since our distro of choice is the largest one thus far. I was more curious about other people's plan B to see if they would match my own. Infact last night I installed PCBSD to test out my Plan B to only unstall it after an hour of frustration with my wireless card that works perfectly with *buntu out of the box. I now have a new Plan B. :lolflag:

starcraft.man
May 19th, 2007, 03:53 AM
Don't take it as an insult because that is not what I am aiming for, but how do you play starcraft without thinking about "what ifs"? What ifs works for me in the real world just as well as it does in chess and other strategy based games.

I did not mean to come across as if Canonical is definitely going to sign a deal with Microsoft, but I do feel that Microsoft will go up against Ubuntu sooner rather than later since our distro of choice is the largest one thus far. I was more curious about other people's plan B.

Infact last night I installed PCBSD, only to unstall it after an hour of frustration with my wireless card that works perfectly with *buntu out of the box. >:)

First off, I don't play starcraft anymore really... *gasp*. I should though, maybe some time...

I don't know exactly how what ifs factor in though. As I see them, a "what if" is a second guessing of your strategy, in life you can't live by constantly second guessing what your doing else you'll just be sitting around over thinking what your next move is (same in starcraft, you can't constantly worry about the enemies moves else he will rush you and you'll be sitting there like a dolt with nothing but a command centre, some droids and a few marines). It seems to me, you do play starcraft by picking the strategy your best suited with and going with that, you alter it if you know the player somewhat to take into account his style and the terrain your on and you make the best of it. So no, I don't think you need to constantly worry about "what if", if it happens so be it, you deal if not then no loss. You just try your best with what you know and thats that.

I don't have a plan B so far, I also don't think that Microsoft even with its resources, could win against Ubuntu. You have to remember its not just cannonical, there are hundreds of interrelated projects and organizations and businesses that would see MS striking at them as well, and I don't think they would go "quietly into that good night" to quote a great line. I don't worry about it, and if MS was foolish enough to go after Ubuntu, they just might seal their own fate... >.>.

and don't worry, I'm not super delicate and sensitive, I don't get insulted easy. :p

Henry Rayker
May 19th, 2007, 04:01 AM
I took the pre-emptive strike card and jumped ship to Fedora quite a while back.

WalmartSniperLX
May 19th, 2007, 04:06 AM
Murdock isn't involved with Debain anymore AFAIK (interview in latest LinuxFormat) - but it would still be funny.



You do know that MS were prosecuted and found guilty by the USJD, and that they've also been found guilty of monopolistic practices by the European Commission? Sounds pretty illegal to me.



I like revile.

????? GUILTY? The reason why they were convicted was that they don't allow redistribution of their software and owning a massive share over the industry, which they were not found guilty of in the end. Just because they were convicted doesn't mean they lost....

EDIT: Sorry they were found guilty.. because they have different laws in Europe. But I don't think they have had anything filed against them in the USA. (with success)

WalmartSniperLX
May 19th, 2007, 04:09 AM
Hi, don't know if this is relevant.

Long-time Debianite, but in recent years a convert to SuSE on objective technical grounds, and now I am here - not through a knee-jerk reaction, but through a series of uninteresting circumstances/conversations stemming from The Deal.

I'm still now going through the agonizing process of tearing myself away from a distro I've grown to love.

I must say that as a refugee, I find it's still hard to get used to the move (I'll be candid with you, I still can't bring myself to delete my SuSE. Don't flame me - I'm sure many would be the same if it were Ubuntu :p ), and to get used to all those warm fuzzy feelings about the distro and about Novell vanishing, and all sorts of community unhappiness and unpleasantness.

I wouldn't wish it on this community at all, but I hope that Microsoft's misguided attitude will bring it to a head in court before it gets near Canonical.


Anyway, my 2 cents. Forgive me if I'm speaking out of turn, it just seemed appropriate to post it here. :)


PS: One thing I will say, the community needs to be aware that it's under attack, and that we must come to the aid of each other because nobody else will.. If, as seems likely, Red Hat comes under attack for its fair and honest stance, I'd consider it an attack on all users of Linux - even though I don't like using their distro very much. :(

PPS:



Where on earth did you get these preposterous ideas from?

A cursory google will throw up a weight of documented record, like court findings, subpoena'd evidence and so on, which fly in the face of what you're saying.

I don't mean to be too adversarial, I'm just saying - if you're going to act like people are just "hating" something irrationally, you can't just throw the actual facts out of the window as a starting point, sorry.

ONCE AGAIN that doesnt mean they were found guilty. They have NOT done anything ilegal (in US laws). MS is not monopolizing the industry. In order to monopolize, they must prevent people from using other software, period. They ARENT doing that. You are running linux right? The only thing MS has done to cause them to get a huge share in the industry is make software that the majority WANTS to use. People want to use MS software because it's easy. It's simple marketing. No dirty ILEGAL tricks.

dspari1
May 19th, 2007, 04:13 AM
First off, I don't play starcraft anymore really... *gasp*. I should though, maybe some time...

I don't know exactly how what ifs factor in though. As I see them, a "what if" is a second guessing of your strategy, in life you can't live by constantly second guessing what your doing else you'll just be sitting around over thinking what your next move is (same in starcraft, you can't constantly worry about the enemies moves else he will rush you and you'll be sitting there like a dolt with nothing but a command centre, some droids and a few marines). It seems to me, you do play starcraft by picking the strategy your best suited with and going with that, you alter it if you know the player somewhat to take into account his style and the terrain your on and you make the best of it. So no, I don't think you need to constantly worry about "what if", if it happens so be it, you deal if not then no loss. You just try your best with what you know and thats that.

I don't have a plan B so far, I also don't think that Microsoft even with its resources, could win against Ubuntu. You have to remember its not just cannonical, there are hundreds of interrelated projects and organizations and businesses that would see MS striking at them as well, and I don't think they would go "quietly into that good night" to quote a great line. I don't worry about it, and if MS was foolish enough to go after Ubuntu, they just might seal their own fate... >.>.

and don't worry, I'm not super delicate and sensitive, I don't get insulted easy. :p

good answer :)

I guess it's more of a personality trait more than anything. Maybe we can play some starcraft some time.

dspari1
May 19th, 2007, 04:18 AM
ONCE AGAIN court findings doesnt mean they were found guilty. They have NOT done anything ilegal. MS is not monopolizing the industry. In order to monopolize, they must prevent people from using other software, period. They ARENT doing that. You are running linux right? The only thing MS has done to cause them to get a huge share in the industry is make software that the majority WANTS to use. People want to use MS software because it's easy. It's simple marketing. No dirty ILEGAL tricks.


The only reason why I feel that Microsoft is now behaving like a monopoly is because they are using scare tactics into getting people to pay them money without even using their products, and they succeeded in doing so with Novell. If Microsoft keeps getting their way, you will forced into paying Microsoft money whether you use Windows, Linux, BSD, or any other OS. If that is not a monopoly in the making, I do not know what is.

WalmartSniperLX
May 19th, 2007, 04:21 AM
The only reason why I feel that Microsoft is now behaving like a monopoly is because they are using scare tactics into getting people to pay them money without even using their software.

If they could have their way, Microsoft would be getting your money whether you use Windows, Linux, BSD, or any other OS. If that is not a monopoly in the making, I do not know what is.

Well everyone has their opinions. I don't use windows anymore so but thats just what I think.

But I dont understand how MS is going to scare you to pay them when not using their software. That doesn't make any sense. Even if they did, that isn't a monopoly thats a scam.

starcraft.man
May 19th, 2007, 04:24 AM
good answer :)

I guess it's more of a personality trait more than anything. Maybe we can play some starcraft some time.

Lol, thanks. I should hope I can provide a worthy argument for any side, I happen to be a heavy philosophy reader/thinker and have a background somewhat in open debates. I love to talk things like this.

As for playing starcraft, anything is possible, I'd prolly be rusty :p.

steveneddy
May 19th, 2007, 04:32 AM
I think I'd go fedora. I have it on a virtual machine and I think I like it better than Ubuntu sometimes.

I don't like the shady tactics of Microsoft and the way that they think that everyone should be stoopid in order to run thier machines.

Look at how many people were duped into buying Vista and then the older office wouldn't work on vista.

I laughed so hard so many times I have just stopped asking.

-SE

dspari1
May 19th, 2007, 04:34 AM
I took the pre-emptive strike card and jumped ship to Fedora quite a while back.

Out of curiosity, what makes you think that Canonical is more likely to cave in than Redhat? So far both Canonical and Redhat have taken strong stances against the Novell deal.

I know that I made the topic, but it was more of a what if scenario than thinking that it would actually happen. I do wonder that the Dell deal might have an impact later on, but after reading the posts here, I do feel that Canonical will put the community in front of convenience.

dspari1
May 19th, 2007, 04:38 AM
I think I'd go fedora. I have it on a virtual machine and I think I like it better than Ubuntu sometimes.

I don't like the shady tactics of Microsoft and the way that they think that everyone should be stoopid in order to run thier machines.

Look at how many people were duped into buying Vista and then the older office wouldn't work on vista.

I laughed so hard so many times I have just stopped asking.

-SE

Seriously, Office 2003 doesn't work on Vista?

sethdotcom
May 19th, 2007, 04:41 AM
That will never happen because well I just dont think it will ever happen

Microsoft wants to buy out linux but they cant

it cant happen because it is community made and no one can own linux
they cant copyright our Linux.

joe.turion64x2
May 19th, 2007, 04:41 AM
I think I'd go fedora. I have it on a virtual machine and I think I like it better than Ubuntu sometimes.

I don't like the shady tactics of Microsoft and the way that they think that everyone should be stoopid in order to run thier machines.

Look at how many people were duped into buying Vista and then the older office wouldn't work on vista.

I laughed so hard so many times I have just stopped asking.

-SE
Couldn't expect anything else from MS. Of course Vista users have to update everything...

joe.turion64x2
May 19th, 2007, 04:44 AM
That will never happen because well I just dont think it will ever happen

Microsoft wants to buy out linux,


but it cant happen because it is community made and operated
they cant copyright our Linux.
MS could buy any given corporation but can not buy Linux itself because it has no owner. I guess that if MS buys a Linux distributor (say Canonical), another distributor would arise: take Ubuntu (in this case) where Canonical left it before being bought, and continue its development. I think that is the way GLP works.

steven8
May 19th, 2007, 04:52 AM
????? GUILTY? The reason why they were convicted was that they don't allow redistribution of their software and owning a massive share over the industry, which they were not found guilty of in the end. Just because they were convicted doesn't mean they lost....

EDIT: Sorry they were found guilty.. because they have different laws in Europe. But I don't think they have had anything filed against them in the USA. (with success)


ONCE AGAIN that doesnt mean they were found guilty. They have NOT done anything ilegal (in US laws). MS is not monopolizing the industry. In order to monopolize, they must prevent people from using other software, period. They ARENT doing that. You are running linux right? The only thing MS has done to cause them to get a huge share in the industry is make software that the majority WANTS to use. People want to use MS software because it's easy. It's simple marketing. No dirty ILEGAL tricks.

So it only counts if it's US law? Their business practices are not eactly above board, actual guilty verdicts or not. Al Capone could only be indicted for tax fraud. The inference is obvious.

I'd move on if they signed a deal with Canonical, and I'd keep moving if they followed where I went. In time, I may just not have a computer at all, and probably be the better for it.

Zyphrexi
May 19th, 2007, 05:11 AM
MS can buy out certain companies that produce software for linux that has a commercial market share. What is ubuntu but a dudded up debian?

actually i'm getting kind of tired of the control that ubuntu takes away from me.


EDIT: I just realized that had nothing to do with the topic... I'm really tiredd

WalmartSniperLX
May 19th, 2007, 05:12 AM
So it only counts if it's US law? Their business practices are not eactly above board, actual guilty verdicts or not. Al Capone could only be indicted for tax fraud. The inference is obvious.

I'd move on if they signed a deal with Canonical, and I'd keep moving if they followed where I went. In time, I may just not have a computer at all, and probably be the better for it.

MS is stationed in the USA. They don't HAVE to support things outside the US. Having to work with international laws is difficult. Its not their fault that the european monopoly laws are a bit stupid; to bust MS for bundling Windows Media player with their own OS. It's rather stupid that they were found guilty because the only bad thing they did was bundle THEIR OWN SOFTWARE on THEIR OWN os. Tell me... what's wrong with making a product and wanting to only sell your products with it, and no one elses. Its YOURS to begin with. If people want a different media player installed on default, they can use something other than windows. Thats what caused the whole monopoly crap in europe. Its the fact that windows comes preinstalled with ONLY ms programs. If the people don't like that, they can easily get a different OS. There's nothing wrong with that.

steven8
May 19th, 2007, 06:13 AM
MS is stationed in the USA. They don't HAVE to support things outside the US. Having to work with international laws is difficult. Its not their fault that the european monopoly laws are a bit stupid; to bust MS for bundling Windows Media player with their own OS. It's rather stupid that they were found guilty because the only bad thing they did was bundle THEIR OWN SOFTWARE on THEIR OWN os. Tell me... what's wrong with making a product and wanting to only sell your products with it, and no one elses. Its YOURS to begin with. If people want a different media player installed on default, they can use something other than windows. Thats what caused the whole monopoly crap in europe. Its the fact that windows comes preinstalled with ONLY ms programs. If the people don't like that, they can easily get a different OS. There's nothing wrong with that.

So I can go to Best Buy and just pick up a system with another OS? It's not that simple. I have no real issue with Microsoft putting their own software with their own OS. It is thing such as embrace, extend, extinguish that bothers me.

From wikiinfo:


Microsoft vs. Free Software

Microsoft acknowledges that one major potential competitor is free software, as exemplified by Linux. Microsoft has targeted free software and open source software with its Embrace, extend and extinguish strategy as revealed in the Halloween documents.

In establishing its monopoly over desktop computing, Microsoft has risked losing the advantages of low cost and greater freedom that drove the PC boom and created its success. It is hard to see how Microsoft can compete with free software on purchase price alone. Many users who believe that Microsoft does not value their freedom of choice have found the prospect of free and open standards offered by free software.

Traditional Microsoft tactics of buying the competition, or of spreading FUD about the longevity of competing products, have not been effective against free software, where the product cannot be bought and controlled, and where software can outlive the companies that first created it.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has stated that Linux is a "tough competitive force... It's non-traditional, it's free and it's cheap. We have to educate people why what they pay for [our offerings] is more than offset by the value we deliver. We used to be the cheap guys. We were cheaper than Novell, cheaper than Oracle. We can't do that with this one." (Reported in CRN.com, June 17, 2002).

Ballmer addressed Fusion 2002, a Microsoft partner conference, saying: "We have prided ourselves on always being the cheapest guy on the block we were going to be higher volume and lower priced than anybody else out there, whether it was Novell, Lotus or anybody else. One issue we have now, a unique competitor, is Linux. We haven't figured out how to be lower priced than Linux. For us as a company, we're going through a whole new world of thinking." (Reported in VARbusiness, July 15 2002).

Microsoft's initial reaction to the sale of low-cost PCs based on the Linux operating system was to declare that it will not reduce the price of its Windows operating system. Some observers have stated that this refusal to compete on price is characteristic monopoly behavior. However, in a 10-Q quarterly filing in 2003, Microsoft nonetheless disclosed that it may be forced to reduce its prices because of open-source competition. [1]


Embrace, Extend and Extinguish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish)



"Embrace, extend and extinguish,"[1] also known as "Embrace, extend, and exterminate,"[2] is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice alleged[3] was used internally by Microsoft[4] to describe their strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors. The strategy and phrase "embrace and extend" were first described in a 1996 New York Times article entitled "Microsoft Trying to Dominate the Internet,"[5] in which John Markoff said, "Rather than merely embrace and extend the Internet, the company's critics now fear, Microsoft intends to engulf it." The phrase "embrace and extend" also appears in a motivational song by an anonymous Microsoft employee,[6] and in an interview of Steve Ballmer by the New York Times.[7]

The more widely used variation, "embrace, extend and extinguish," was first introduced in the United States v. Microsoft antitrust trial when the vice president of Intel, Steven McGeady, testified[8] that Microsoft vice president Paul Maritz used the phrase in a 1995 meeting with Intel to describe Microsoft's strategy toward Netscape, Java, and the Internet.[9][10] In this context, the phrase means to highlight the final phase of Microsoft's strategy as raised by McGeady, which was to drive customers away from smaller competitors.

Halloween Documents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents)



Halloween documents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Halloween documents are a series of confidential memoranda on potential strategies employed by Microsoft relating to open-source software and to Linux in particular; and a series of responses to these memoranda. Both the leaked documents and the responses were published by Eric S. Raymond. The documents are associated with Halloween, October 31, because many of them were originally leaked close to that date.

WalmartSniperLX
May 19th, 2007, 06:17 AM
So I can go to Best Buy and just pick up a system with another OS? It's not that simple. I have no real issue with Microsoft putting their own software with their own OS. It is thing such as embrace, extend, extinguish that bothers me.

From wikiinfo:




Embrace, Extend and Extinguish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish)




Halloween Documents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents)

Well its up to the computer manufacturers if they want windows preloaded on their systems or not. Most of them say yes because they know thats what the public demands. However I respect your reason to not like MS and others as well. Didn't mean to get on your bad sides >.<. However when people use the term hate or show elevated anger toward MS it makes me angry because they have a choice and they should leave MS alone. I'm just so sick of this MS junk on this forum. People need to spend more time talking about making opensource better, and stop focusing so hard on whats going on in the proprietary world.

steven8
May 19th, 2007, 06:23 AM
Well its up to the computer manufacturers if they want windows on their systems or not. Most of them say yes because they know thats what the public demands. However I respect your reason to not like MS and others as well. Didn't mean to get on your bad sides >.<. However when people use the term hate or show elevated anger toward MS it makes me angry because they have a choice and they should leave MS alone. I'm just so sick of this MS junk on this forum. People need to spend more time talking about making opensource better, and stop focusing so hard on whats going on in the proprietary world.

I will add a +1 and an amen to that, my friend! We have to educate people as to their options, not just bicker amongst ourselves.

Tundro Walker
May 19th, 2007, 12:48 PM
Folks saying they'd just go straight to BSD...you're holding off the inevitable.

MS has basically filed for patents on such vague things like "look and feel", "window (this and that)", etc, that all GUI's ever created would fall under their ambiguous, vague patents.

So, they're wanting to pursue Linux now, because it's a small threat which may grow. BSD isn't even on the radar. But if it started to grow in popularity, you can count on MS to start saying it's infringing on their patents as well.

Sadly, there just needs to be a mass stand against MS on this junk. But, the Linux distro's and BSD crowds are so divided (not against each other, but just off doing their own things), that MS can single them out for take-down.

It's kinda how Hitler started taking over Europe. He starts with one country, and everyone turns a blind eye. Then he moves to another, and folks still turn a blind eye. It's not until they make a dash for a lot at once...then folks will stand up and cry foul. But, MS is smart, and knows that if it just slowly whittles away at things, it'll get its way. Freedom is easier to take away over time then to take away all at once.

I personally think a whole lot of Linux, BSD, & Source Forge groups should get together, hire a good legal counsel, and take MS to court over this stuff. HEck, I'd be willing to donate some money for this cause if it'll get MS to shut up, and stop bullying folks that just want to go about their daily lives.

starcraft.man
May 19th, 2007, 02:30 PM
Folks saying they'd just go straight to BSD...you're holding off the inevitable.

MS has basically filed for patents on such vague things like "look and feel", "window (this and that)", etc, that all GUI's ever created would fall under their ambiguous, vague patents.

So, they're wanting to pursue Linux now, because it's a small threat which may grow. BSD isn't even on the radar. But if it started to grow in popularity, you can count on MS to start saying it's infringing on their patents as well.

Sadly, there just needs to be a mass stand against MS on this junk. But, the Linux distro's and BSD crowds are so divided (not against each other, but just off doing their own things), that MS can single them out for take-down.


For everyone wanting to make a stand, your solution has arrived here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=448521) :D.

I'll be signing up later too, don't be shy.

spacegypsy
May 19th, 2007, 02:35 PM
It's one of the reasons I switched from SuSE to Ubuntu. :-\":-\"

Adamant1988
May 19th, 2007, 05:11 PM
It's one of the reasons I switched from SuSE to Ubuntu. :-\":-\"

Unless you were using SLED you weren't even effected by the agreement.. why switch?

Incάnus
May 19th, 2007, 05:12 PM
ONCE AGAIN that doesnt mean they were found guilty. They have NOT done anything ilegal (in US laws).

...

No dirty ILEGAL tricks.

Repeatedly asserting the sky is green, and the grass is blue, will never make it so.

Microsoft have been found to have acted illegally, in both the USA and in the EU.

Check your facts, they are simply wrong.

Adamant1988
May 19th, 2007, 05:20 PM
Microsoft HAS been found guilty of anti-competitive practices, and IS a monopoly in the United States (and the world). To put this in tune for you, Google has no less than 55% of the search market, and owns about 60-70% of the online advertisement market, Microsoft and other companies have been threatening them with antitrust lawsuits.

Microsoft has well over 90% of the PC market, and they undergo antitrust lawsuits every single time they release a new version of Windows. This time it was with Symantec. They are most certainly a monopoly.

joe.turion64x2
May 19th, 2007, 05:21 PM
Microsoft HAS been found guilty of anti-competitive practices, and IS a monopoly in the United States (and the world). To put this in tune for you, Google has no less than 55% of the search market, and owns about 60-70% of the online advertisement market, Microsoft and other companies have been threatening them with antitrust lawsuits.

Microsoft has well over 90% of the PC market, and they undergo antitrust lawsuits every single time they release a new version of Windows. This time it was with Symantec. They are most certainly a monopoly.
Perhaps they are not an official monopoly because they would run into trouble with the law, but they are a de facto monopoly.

Adamant1988
May 19th, 2007, 05:29 PM
Perhaps they are not an official monopoly because they would run into trouble with the law, but they are a de facto monopoly.

Someone can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe Microsoft Corp. was forced to split into 2 (or maybe 4) companies some years ago (pre-2000) under antitrust law because they had attained a monopolistic status.
Currently the only reason that Microsoft is able to get away with what they do is because viable alternatives ARE arising. Apple's heavy marketing and Linux's availability have put two options on the table for informed users.

WalmartSniperLX
May 19th, 2007, 06:10 PM
My last post here was a bit immature so Im just going to say this:

If MS were a monopoly then they would own 100% of the ad market. Not to mention the Ad market is up for purchase :P so anyone can purchase in it....

MS is not a monopoly. Look it up. Look up MS, look up the word in the dictionary. MS does contracts inwhich many companies and developers sign under or with them. It's not MS' fault that people are making agreements with them, and helping their growth.

And, my reasons for being so confrontational (and sorry too) is because almost every page thru the forum (at least the community discussion) there's posts about people talking trash about MS. That's perfectly fine because it's your opinion and we value it here. But, why can't you people stop? It seems that as newcomers come to the forum, and begin switching to linux, and see all the MS posts, they will feel its right to bash MS. They might not even have such a hatrid for MS until they see all these posts against MS, spreading FALSE information. Soon, the newcomer will follow in and then more newcomers. That's how I felt when I switched to Ubuntu, and is why I will not use it again.

Seriously this forum makes me sick. You are the LARGEST linux-distro community in the world. Why do you have to have so much hatrid? This forum is overflowed with MS posts. Its okay but also very repetitive and doesn't contribute anything but more hatrid toward MS, and it seems to have done that. I continue to visit here because I know the potential of everyone involved. There are many people whom I value so highly (but will not name) because they do nothing but contribute GOOD. Bashing MS is BAD and isn't any less "EVIL" than MS themselves.

WalmartSniperLX
May 19th, 2007, 06:15 PM
Repeatedly asserting the sky is green, and the grass is blue, will never make it so.

Microsoft have been found to have acted illegally, in both the USA and in the EU.

Check your facts, they are simply wrong.

Ok they you provide a link of facts that show ms was succesfully charged for a crime in the US. I understand in the EU..

Adamant1988
May 19th, 2007, 06:22 PM
Ok. I'm supposed to be done with this topic but I just can't help this. :) 60%-70% of the advertising market is not 100%, therfor not a monopoly. lol And my facts are not wrong.. to whomever said it.

They have been testified against many times (yes true) by rediculous means. But, did not lose. They did split the company up FINANCIALLY in two, but that was to avoid conflict. MS is NOT a monopoly. I don't want to sound rude but I don't care what you people say they have been convicted of, because its all bs. If MS were a monopoly, then there would be NO OTHER computer software makers in the world (and hardware developers would not be able to support anything else, inwhich some do). Once again MS gained their status because everyone wants to use them. So many people TRY to file against them because MS is such a successful corp, but no matter what I dont care. They are not a monopoly. Maybe a simple dictionary look-up will help you all out. I'm sorry I still respect the fact that you peole don't like MS but it seems like so much hatrid and false information has spread around this forum.

Answers.com:


"Monopoly

A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition - which often results in high prices and inferior products.

For a strict academic definition, a monopoly is a market containing a single firm."

Again, let us go and find Microsoft's competition for the desktop operating system:
You have Apple, which really isn't a competitor since it markets to a completely different breed of people, and then you have Linux which is an opt-in non-oem system that doesn't work as often as it does.

Now, what I find really interesting is that you're telling us to go look in a dictionary when you can't even use the word 'testified' properly. The word you were looking for is 'tried', as in 'tried by a court of law'.

Oh, and it did lose, repeatedly. Microsoft has been forced to remove features or lighten them up in almost EVERY single major release of Windows since the monopoly was established. For a recent case please see Symantec and what they did to get Microsoft to lighten up on kernel security so that their security apps could plug up the holes that they forced Microsoft to create. With Windows XP the issue arose with Kodak, etc.

Microsoft is a monopoly in the operating system market, and the governments are becoming increasingly wary of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices (please see recent EU decisions concerning Microsoft).


On April 3, 2000, a judgment was handed down in the case of United States v. Microsoft,[10] calling the company an "abusive monopoly"[28] and forcing the company to split into two separate units. Part of this ruling was later overturned by a federal appeals court, and eventually settled with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2001. From Wikipedia.

WalmartSniperLX
May 19th, 2007, 06:46 PM
Bah Im really done with this topic. Believe what you want. It's rather pointless to be arguing with people who don't know the fact that MS isn't a monopoly and it isn't their fault that they got so large.

And, to say that MS needed to open their vista kernel to let Symantec and Macafee in is bs. It, for one, is SAFE when its locked, and second, it's their kernel; they can do as they please.

Adamant1988
May 19th, 2007, 06:55 PM
You aren't talking about when Symantec and Macafee wanted MS to open the Vista kenel? Because they aren't doing that... and that has nothing to do with MS being a monopoly

And also the fact that they were split was overturned, which usually happens when they find an alternative, that MS isn't a monopoly.

And there aren't many competitors because no one WANTS TO USE ANYTHING ELSE.

Also I stated the major reason why MS was found a monopoly in EU. It has nothing to do with a monopoly. Once again you would notice that MS is so large because people CHOOSE to use it. It's not their fault. They're not a monopoly. They are'nt locking out competition except when it comes INSIDE windows.

1) Symantec did force Microsoft to slack off on it's kernel protections. Microsoft had locked down the kernel so tightly that Symantec was unable to plug it's applications into it without using 'black hat' techniques, effectively destroying their product. It was an anti-competitive mark on Microsoft's part (Using It's platform to push it's own solutions).

2) You can get anything overturned by finding a friendly appeals court that accepts sizable donations (read: bribes)


3) Yes, you're right, people CHOSE to use Microsoft Windows, now they don't have that choice. Windows has spread so far that unless you're a graphics professional most times corporations or home users HAVE to use Windows to attain the software they need. Just because the consumers built the beast does not make it any less of a beast.

4) They ARE locking out competition. There have been leaked internal letters where Microsoft officials spoke of strong-arming companies like Dell when it comes to Linux. They said, and I'll quote, "They are allowed to meet demand, but not create demand".

5) also, you make an interesting point. You said that Microsoft isn't locking out competition except when it comes inside of Windows. But, you see, Windows represents roughly 90% of the PC market today. Your point is WRONG and misguided of course, as Microsoft has been using anti-competitive measures to slow/stop Linux adoption for some time now. But the fact that you bother to make this point shows you really don't know what you're talking about.

JNowka
May 19th, 2007, 06:58 PM
I don't consider them a monopoly for being so large. What I feel you are not getting is what makes them a monopoly at this point and time, is what they do in order to continue being that large.

Adamant1988
May 19th, 2007, 07:01 PM
I don't consider them a monopoly for being so large. What I feel you are not getting is what makes them a monopoly at this point and time, is what they do in order to continue being that large.

This is a valid point. In my mind it's not the size of the company that turns it into a monopolistic nightmare, it is how that company behaves. If a more free-minded company were to gain the kind of market share that Microsoft has it would probably be celebrated instead of feared. The reason people dislike Microsoft's monopoly is that they actually use it to strong arm other companies into enforcing it.

WalmartSniperLX
May 19th, 2007, 07:02 PM
1) Symantec did force Microsoft to slack off on it's kernel protections. Microsoft had locked down the kernel so tightly that Symantec was unable to plug it's applications into it without using 'black hat' techniques, effectively destroying their product. It was an anti-competitive mark on Microsoft's part (Using It's platform to push it's own solutions).

2) You can get anything overturned by finding a friendly appeals court that accepts sizable donations (read: bribes)


3) Yes, you're right, people CHOSE to use Microsoft Windows, now they don't have that choice. Windows has spread so far that unless you're a graphics professional most times corporations or home users HAVE to use Windows to attain the software they need. Just because the consumers built the beast does not make it any less of a beast.

4) They ARE locking out competition. There have been leaked internal letters where Microsoft officials spoke of strong-arming companies like Dell when it comes to Linux. They said, and I'll quote, "They are allowed to meet demand, but not create demand".

5) also, you make an interesting point. You said that Microsoft isn't locking out competition except when it comes inside of Windows. But, you see, Windows represents roughly 90% of the PC market today. Your point is WRONG and misguided of course, as Microsoft has been using anti-competitive measures to slow/stop Linux adoption for some time now. But the fact that you bother to make this point shows you really don't know what you're talking about.

ok Lets play it this way:

1) How does that make the kernel safer? Taking down the secure lock? MS didn't have to unlock it even if they did. I don't know what to believe on this
2) True, but it takes a good appeal with a good reason to get the courts to allow it. Appeals happen all the time and are constantly turned down....
3) Consumers DONT have a choice? Well that sucks because they really do. They choose MS. Lets not forget that there are alternatives but the majority still goes with MS. Look at the Xbox360. More developers are leaving sony simply because they CHOOSE the Xbox because It is a better platform to work with.
4) Yeah ok show the letters
5) The reason why MS is 90% of the market is because either people chose it, or because the average user doesnt give a crap and uses MS Windows because it is easy and works. MS' anti-competitive measures? You mean how they pay hardware developers to develop for them only? Well they aren't telling them to develop for MS ONLY,; the developers simply like MS and the fact that they are PAID. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Adamant1988
May 19th, 2007, 07:16 PM
ok Lets play it this way:

1) How does that make the kernel safer? Taking down the secure lock? MS didn't have to unlock it even if they did. I don't know what to believe on this
2) True, but it takes a good appeal with a good reason to get the courts to allow it. Appeals happen all the time and are constantly turned down....
3) Consumers DONT have a choice? Well that sucks because they really do. They choose MS. Lets not forget that there are alternatives but the majority still goes with MS. Look at the Xbox360. More developers are leaving sony simply because they CHOOSE the Xbox because It is a better platform to work with.
4) Yeah ok show the letters
5) The reason why MS is 90% of the market is because either people chose it, or because the average user doesnt give a crap and uses MS Windows because it is easy and works. MS' anti-competitive measures? You mean how they pay hardware developers to develop for them only? Well they aren't telling them to develop for MS ONLY,; the developers simply like MS and the fact that they are PAID. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

1) It doesn't make the kernel safer, we're not speaking about technology here, we're talking about anti-competitive practices. I was actually in favor of Microsoft being allowed to lock down the kernel, but it is an anti-competitive move legally.

2) No, no it doesn't. It takes a good lawyer and a check. You seem to misunderstand how corrupt some courts are in America.

3) The general consumer does not have a choice in their operating system, not really. They can choose a Mac and Apple is trying to work it's way into this market. But the fact remains that unless you're going to be doing something highly specialized with your system (Development, graphics work, etc.) you will be using Windows 9 times out of 10.

4) I can't find the letters themselves in my index at the moment, but I have found a bookmarked article that references them. LINK (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/09/dell_linux_china/)

5) No, Microsoft has positioned OEM manufacturers in such a way that they're reliant on MS. Without Microsoft these businesses can't do business now, which is why you couldn't buy Linux from a major OEM until recently. Any major OEM is forced into buying huge amoutns of volume licenses because they have to meed demand for Windows boxes, the demand for which is created by the fact that there is no alternative.

Basically, because consumers need an application that runs on Windows, they will run Windows. They did not choose to run Windows, they NEEDED to run Windows. Now, because consumers NEED Windows, they are demanding Windows, because they need it. It's a cycle which is in place because Microsoft is a monopoly.

Now, you could just say "Well, no one is stopping those developers from developing for something else", and to an extent you're right. But it costs money to pay an in-house development crew to port an application to Linux of Mac OS X (both of which have pretty specialized consumer bases) for very little return on that investment.

For the Consumer: All roads lead to Windows.
For the developer: All roads lead to Windows
For the OEM: All roads lead to Windows.

Incάnus
May 19th, 2007, 09:01 PM
That's perfectly fine because it's your opinion and we value it here. But, why can't you people stop?

My opinion and your opinion we can leave aside.

It is stone cold objective fact that Microsoft have been found to have acted illegally in both the USA and the EU.



Ok they you provide a link of facts that show

I pointedly avoided doing that actually.

The reason? Well, not to be rude or awkward at all.

It's because you could easily spend 7 days a week out of your life explaining and re-explaining and re-explaining it over and over again to every google-challenged soul you meet if you fell into that trap, because lots of people, like your good self with all due respect, comment before they're appraised of the facts.

I see people do that whole explanation-loop thing. Nobody thanks them for providing the facts, they just consider them "anti-Microsoft" because it obviously took effort.

Now consider two things from my point of view - first, it's a fact, not a crusade, and they're a company I don't care very much about - I have much more cool things to do than worry about them, as do we all.

Second, it's public record, and is on the end of a cursory google search - it's not completely considerate to expect me to do that for you, so I draw what I think is a fairly reasonable line there. :)

Of course I'll point you in the right direction, in the spirit of being helpful. You can ferret Judge Jackson's findings from the 1999 USA vs. Microsoft case, and lead on from where those results take you.


ms was succesfully charged for a crime in the US. I understand in the EU..

Wow, sudden change of direction - what the heck? :lolflag:

If we were discussing a corporation being charged with a crime, I missed it.

You said they haven't "acted illegally". There's quite a massively wide distinction there - especially with antitrust, for obvious reasons.

Medieval_Creations
May 19th, 2007, 09:03 PM
I switched to get away from MS. I would probably switch back to Slackware and Debian, the two that I was using b-4 I switched to Ubuntu.

sethdotcom
May 19th, 2007, 10:31 PM
MS could buy any given corporation but can not buy Linux itself because it has no owner. I guess that if MS buys a Linux distributor (say Canonical), another distributor would arise: take Ubuntu (in this case) where Canonical left it before being bought, and continue its development. I think that is the way GLP works.

I know i said that

WalmartSniperLX
May 20th, 2007, 08:15 AM
For crying out loud... Adamant I can keep going on but this will keep going forever. :P

And i didn't make a change in direction FYI my point was that MS is not a monopoly.

However Im sorry for exchanging imaturity and claiming that you don't know what you're saying. Comments like that should be left out of debates like this. You shouldn't have said it to me either... because I know what I'm saying just as much as you do.

For one, inorder for a company to be a monopoly they must be the ONLY company allowed to market a product of a certain type and there cannot be ANY competition. A monopoly would block ALL competetors period. The fact that we're using linux proves MS not to be a monopoly becase a monopoly means one (hence mon like in monarchy).

FYI the reason why everyone supports MS is because they get paid. They aren't completely dependent on MS because there's Apple. Linux cannot support jack (sorry to say) because it's free software. That's pretty much it. Adamant you could become an entreprenuer and start your own business in proprietary computing and compete very well with MS. im sure of that. Anyone can. The problem is that MS is such a huge, high paying corporation, that it's hard for new companies to unearth and compete (at least in the start). MS isn't going to tell you that you can't compete. They might try and buy you out >.< but that's your decision to allow that.

Seriously, MS is not at all a monopoly. They may be close to one but in my mind, close doesn't cut it. Especcially in terms of monopolies.

In end, thanks for discussing this with me. Ill still support MS when people accuse them of being a monopoly. But thats about all the support they'll get from me.

And to clear things up: I understand MS has been taken to the courts many times, but for charges that are unreasonable and unjust. They are a fair company, that everyone likes. Keep in mind most people who use a computer aren't like us linux users :(. They dont care about anything. They just want a pc that works and that is easy. The fact that MS is HUGE and is the #1 in the industry is thankable to the users worldwide. Look around the internet. Many people are completely happy with windows. Face it. We are a minority who gets less attention than the popular demand.

Oh yeah Adamant.. I do graphic work using blender and it works great in Linux. And, there are plenty of businesses such as auto-engineering that use SPARC systems, and not windows. Also, Industrial Light And Magic use Mac. Hmm actually a lot of movie productions use Apple.

WalmartSniperLX
May 20th, 2007, 08:29 AM
1) It doesn't make the kernel safer, we're not speaking about technology here, we're talking about anti-competitive practices. I was actually in favor of Microsoft being allowed to lock down the kernel, but it is an anti-competitive move legally.

2) No, no it doesn't. It takes a good lawyer and a check. You seem to misunderstand how corrupt some courts are in America.

3) The general consumer does not have a choice in their operating system, not really. They can choose a Mac and Apple is trying to work it's way into this market. But the fact remains that unless you're going to be doing something highly specialized with your system (Development, graphics work, etc.) you will be using Windows 9 times out of 10.

4) I can't find the letters themselves in my index at the moment, but I have found a bookmarked article that references them. LINK (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/09/dell_linux_china/)

5) No, Microsoft has positioned OEM manufacturers in such a way that they're reliant on MS. Without Microsoft these businesses can't do business now, which is why you couldn't buy Linux from a major OEM until recently. Any major OEM is forced into buying huge amoutns of volume licenses because they have to meed demand for Windows boxes, the demand for which is created by the fact that there is no alternative.

Basically, because consumers need an application that runs on Windows, they will run Windows. They did not choose to run Windows, they NEEDED to run Windows. Now, because consumers NEED Windows, they are demanding Windows, because they need it. It's a cycle which is in place because Microsoft is a monopoly.

Now, you could just say "Well, no one is stopping those developers from developing for something else", and to an extent you're right. But it costs money to pay an in-house development crew to port an application to Linux of Mac OS X (both of which have pretty specialized consumer bases) for very little return on that investment.

For the Consumer: All roads lead to Windows.
For the developer: All roads lead to Windows
For the OEM: All roads lead to Windows.

2) Yes a good lawyer... exactly.. inwhich MS had. A good lawyer who wasn't an idiot obviously... because a bad laywer doesnt come with bad evidence or reasons.. So I understand it. Trust me.
3) Like I said. Many movie productions and animators use Apple or Linux. Many engineers use SPARC. It's a mix when it comes to that category.
5) No.... OEM manufacturers CHOOSE MS. AGAIN wtf are you saying? They arent forced to do ****. Are you saying if I went into computer science and marketed my own gpu chipsets I would HAVE to buy MS lisences? Sure, if I WANTED to support windows, which is where the BIG BUCKS ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY CHOOSE WHATEVER THE HECK THEY WANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!
**And lets not forget the average user around the world doesn't want to put up with a terminal. And, they arent bothered by windows, and probably dont sit on the computer for more than a few hours unless theyre on myspace. Windows is perfect for them, and they are the people to thank for MS being so large.


For the consumer : Well most people who get a pc arent geeks like us.. so yes Windows OR Mac
For the developer : It's their decision.... not yours or MS'. Let them decide on what platform they want to develop for....
For the OEM : Again, dont make up their mind. Linux hasnt been shipped on OEM systems because it's not easy enough for the general public...

As much as I do respect your opinion, you are spreading false information.

And sorry.. really. I'm done. Really I don't see how this is benifiting anyone. This is a debate that should just stop. Please do respond; let us hear what you have to say. Im not shutting anyone up. But, IM done :P I'm sick of the MS posts. This is Ubuntu/Linux. We should post more about Linux and what can be done to help it... that's the whole point of community. Bashing MS won't do anything to help GNU/Linux, Ubuntu, or open source in general. All it does is point out the problems and leaves them there for people to notice without a solution.

spacegypsy
May 20th, 2007, 01:25 PM
Unless you were using SLED you weren't even effected by the agreement.. why switch?

True I did not use SLED.
I used open SuSE.
The main reason was YAST, I didn't work that well, synaptic does.
And then came the deal with MS, I didn't felt good about it. :(

DirtyJayx
May 20th, 2007, 01:44 PM
I guess i would stay with ubuntu too. I don't mind if Canonical signed a deal with MS as i didnt mind when Novell did. Nothing personal with MS or Bill Gates i guess ;):p

Adamant1988
May 20th, 2007, 02:13 PM
2) Yes a good lawyer... exactly.. inwhich MS had. A good lawyer who wasn't an idiot obviously... because a bad laywer doesnt come with bad evidence or reasons.. So I understand it. Trust me.
3) Like I said. Many movie productions and animators use Apple or Linux. Many engineers use SPARC. It's a mix when it comes to that category.
5) No.... OEM manufacturers CHOOSE MS. AGAIN wtf are you saying? They arent forced to do ****. Are you saying if I went into computer science and marketed my own gpu chipsets I would HAVE to buy MS lisences? Sure, if I WANTED to support windows, which is where the BIG BUCKS ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY CHOOSE WHATEVER THE HECK THEY WANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!
**And lets not forget the average user around the world doesn't want to put up with a terminal. And, they arent bothered by windows, and probably dont sit on the computer for more than a few hours unless theyre on myspace. Windows is perfect for them, and they are the people to thank for MS being so large.


For the consumer : Well most people who get a pc arent geeks like us.. so yes Windows OR Mac
For the developer : It's their decision.... not yours or MS'. Let them decide on what platform they want to develop for....
For the OEM : Again, dont make up their mind. Linux hasnt been shipped on OEM systems because it's not easy enough for the general public...

As much as I do respect your opinion, you are spreading false information.

And sorry.. really. I'm done. Really I don't see how this is benifiting anyone. This is a debate that should just stop. Please do respond; let us hear what you have to say. Im not shutting anyone up. But, IM done :P I'm sick of the MS posts. This is Ubuntu/Linux. We should post more about Linux and what can be done to help it... that's the whole point of community. Bashing MS won't do anything to help GNU/Linux, Ubuntu, or open source in general. All it does is point out the problems and leaves them there for people to notice without a solution.

No sir, you are the one who is falsifying information under your misguided opinion to attempt to be centrist. For instance, you have directly avoided ANY argument that I have made that shows/argues my point with any degree of success. You're carefully choosing which statements of mine to respond to, because you have no basis or way to disprove the other ones. Again, I'll repeat.


5) No, Microsoft has positioned OEM manufacturers in such a way that they're reliant on MS. Without Microsoft these businesses can't do business now, which is why you couldn't buy Linux from a major OEM until recently. Any major OEM is forced into buying huge amoutns of volume licenses because they have to meed demand for Windows boxes, the demand for which is created by the fact that there is no alternative.

Basically, because consumers need an application that runs on Windows, they will run Windows. They did not choose to run Windows, they NEEDED to run Windows. Now, because consumers NEED Windows, they are demanding Windows, because they need it. It's a cycle which is in place because Microsoft is a monopoly.

Now, you could just say "Well, no one is stopping those developers from developing for something else", and to an extent you're right. But it costs money to pay an in-house development crew to port an application to Linux of Mac OS X (both of which have pretty specialized consumer bases) for very little return on that investment.

For the Consumer: All roads lead to Windows.
For the developer: All roads lead to Windows
For the OEM: All roads lead to Windows.

Ok, now I want you to discount any actual point of this statement. The statement asserts the following:

1) OEMs that have built their business selling Windows boxes (DELL, HP, Toshiba, etc.) have next to no option but to continue to buy massive quantities of Windows Licenses from Microsoft in order to meet a demand that is created by vendor (Microsoft) Lock-In.

2) Consumers are not presented with the option, or even the knowledge of any alternatives aside from the Mac, which can only be attained from a single company. Most user-space applications are written for Windows thereby forcing consumers (and even many businesses) to use Windows to run those applications (even if virtualized, you have to have a license for that too). This creates the demand for #1.

3) The consumers then have Windows machines forced down their throat because it's the only thing they can really buy from the likes of DELL, HP, etc. which represent the major OEMs of the PC world. Which only feeds #2.

See the cycle?

Now, am I asserting that if you created your own GPU and wanted to market it you would have no choice but to sell for Windows? To an extent, yes. You're free to market for something else, but Apple won't take it as they have a close relationship with their partners for the mac hardware, and Linux users might buy it. But OH WAIT, Linux users are never even going to know it exists because the only way for you to get enough money to market it, put it on store shelves, etc. is to SELL IT FOR WINDOWS. So, in effect, you won't reach even half of your Linux market potential without selling to Windows users, just so the Linux users can get your product. Again, all roads lead to Windows.

I'll also make something else clear, Microsoft is a wonderful software company, really. But they are a monopoly and monopolies are bad for users, and bad for business. I sincerely hope that Microsoft is forced into a position of lower market share so that a competitor can get in that space and force Microsoft to start writing cross-platform applications.

There is no solution to this problem outside of the competition between big companies, and the courts. Discussing it provides a healthy brain exercise, however.

WalmartSniperLX
May 20th, 2007, 05:04 PM
Bahh I have more to that ... :P But ill let you think about what you said. There's still choice. I wouldnt market for MS bro. :P If I did market a product in pc hardware such as gpus then I would target opensource to promote it, and find OTHER MEANS to bring in most of my profit rather than just gpu sales. Also I would promote open drivers so my gpu can be used on all platforms. Remember OEM manufactuerers choose who they want.... I keep saying this because they still choose Windows because they know they make a lot of money there. They are dependent on MS for their large success only because MS is such a success.... they aren't being controlled to do anything. Why not email Dell or HP and ask them if they hate MS and if MS is really trapping them, or if they choose to support them because its the major market. Of course they can't draw back now because there is no other major market than MS. :P

BTW im not spreading false information... maybe if you were better educated in how people run businesses then you would realize MS isn't doing anything to force anyone to work with them. Also I chose not to return an argument for some of your statements because either I didnt have to (because you couldnt provide something) or I felt other statements were more important to respond to. And since you said that, I will respond:


1) OEMs that have built their business selling Windows boxes (DELL, HP, Toshiba, etc.) have next to no option but to continue to buy massive quantities of Windows Licenses from Microsoft in order to meet a demand that is created by vendor (Microsoft) Lock-In.

2) Consumers are not presented with the option, or even the knowledge of any alternatives aside from the Mac, which can only be attained from a single company. Most user-space applications are written for Windows thereby forcing consumers (and even many businesses) to use Windows to run those applications (even if virtualized, you have to have a license for that too). This creates the demand for #1.

3) The consumers then have Windows machines forced down their throat because it's the only thing they can really buy from the likes of DELL, HP, etc. which represent the major OEMs of the PC world. Which only feeds #2.

1) OEM manufactuers have next to no choice? No duh because there isn't much out there offering huge pay. And as far as a lock-in, Apple is worse for the consumer.
2) Ok. Then you put together a company and promote open source or another proprietary platform. Not many people are stepping up. Then again it's hard when the next largest platform is free
3)Right but its Dells, HP, etc's choices. You should make computers and ship them with Linux and promote linux directed toward the general public. Thats all it takes to start a movement. But, notice that not many people are doing that because there is little profit.... and linux is a free platform, and not many people want to step down from a huge salery to work for free or less.

Seriously.... What is with you and trying to prove me wrong? People have their choices and the majority chooses MS. Sure MS owns 90% of the market.... but that's about (at least) 89% of the market that isn't complaining (minus whomever who hates it and will soon switch to something else). When you speak, you act as if you are representing everyone and that everyone hates MS. But, you forget that this community (and all NIX users) are a minority. Most people love MS.... and that's why it is used everywhere (shipped by OEM, in businesses, schools, etc). Not to mention they offer comercial support too :P .

steveneddy
May 20th, 2007, 05:23 PM
Seriously, Office 2003 doesn't work on Vista?

My neighbor just bought two new vista machines this year, one a desktop and the other a laptop. Bot installed with OEM Vista. He had also last year bought the latest at the time Office for his XP machine.

He tried to install the Office he had purchased last year at a very high cost to himself, and the Vista OS told him that it was NOT compatable and to purchase Vista Office, or whatever it's called.

I laughed and gave him an old Ubuntu CD, which he took home and he read about it. When he found out it was free software, he brought the cd back and said that he never installs free software on his PC's, that he always get a virus of something with it.

After a long talk about Linux and the Free Software movement, he still didn't understand. He left mumbling that his Office still didn't work with Vista.

But, yes, Office 2003 won't work with Vista.

Adamant1988
May 20th, 2007, 05:24 PM
Bahh I have more to that ... :P But ill let you think about what you said. There's still choice. I wouldnt market for MS bro. :P If I did market a product in pc hardware such as gpus then I would target opensource to promote it, and find OTHER MEANS to bring in most of my profit rather than just gpu sales. Also I would promote open drivers so my gpu can be used on all platforms. Remember OEM manufactuerers choose who they want.... I keep saying this because they still choose Windows because they know they make a lot of money there. They are dependent on MS for their large success only because MS is such a success.... they aren't being controlled to do anything. Why not email Dell or HP and ask them if they hate MS and if MS is really trapping them, or if they choose to support them because its the major market. Of course they can't draw back now because there is no other major market than MS. :P

BTW im not spreading false information... maybe if you were better educated in how people run businesses then you would realize MS isn't doing anything to force anyone to work with them. Also I chose not to return an argument for some of your statements because either I didnt have to (because you couldnt provide something) or I felt other statements were more important to respond to. And since you said that, I will respond:

OEM manufactuers have next to no choice? No duh because there isn't much out there offering huge pay.

I am available on every single IM client I have listed in my account. Please, by all means 'educate' me. I will privately rip any argument you can give me to shreds, if you would rather we have this conversation there. I also respond to every PM that is sent to me, so we can even continue this there. You are wrong, I have shown you you are wrong, and simply plugging your ears and putting a happy spin on what I say is not going to disprove me.

My father is an entrepreneur, and while I am do not have a college degree (yet) I am very close to local business owners and I am a member of the junior chamber of commerce locally, and have had every single business class that the local community college offers. These classes include such things as, 'Marketing', 'Entrepreneurship', and ' Economics'. So let's leave my personal education out of this.

Now, I am going to issue a query to you, and I would like you to respond to that. You can do so privately, or you can do so on this thread, I don't care. You repeatedly assert that people are choosing to support and use Microsoft Windows because 'That is where the money is'. Doesn't this very statement in itself imply that there is little to no money elsewhere? Doesn't it imply, by your own words, that since Microsoft is such a success, others are failures? Your very own logic supports my argument that people are not being given a choice, a real choice. Your entire argument is that 'People have a choice, they have a choice between making money or not', well sir, for businesses that is not any kind of a choice.



OEM manufactuers have next to no choice? No duh because there isn't much out there offering huge pay.
Because Microsoft is a monopoly.


I keep saying this because they still choose Windows because they know they make a lot of money there.
Because Microsoft is a monopoly.


They are dependent on MS for their large success only because MS is such a success....
Because Microsoft is a monopoly.


if they choose to support them because its the major market
Because Microsoft is a...

http://www.bewersdorff-online.de/monopoly/monopoly.gif


1) OEM manufactuers have next to no choice? No duh because there isn't much out there offering huge pay. And as far as a lock-in, Apple is worse for the consumer.
2) Ok. Then you put together a company and promote open source or another proprietary platform. Not many people are stepping up. Then again it's hard when the next largest platform is free
3)Right but its Dells, HP, etc's choices. You should make computers and ship them with Linux and promote linux directed toward the general public. Thats all it takes to start a movement. But, notice that not many people are doing that because there is little profit.... and linux is a free platform, and not many people want to step down from a huge salery to work for free or less.



I caught this late.
1) Apple is a different beast entirely. Apple produces computers that are akin to video game consoles by design (OS is tied to the hardware). Apple strikes deals with hardware vendors to get what it needs for it's macs. It does not force them to work with them through market share. (Microsoft: "If you don't support us, you'll go broke really quick")

2) I do not have the technical education (programming experience) to do this, nor do I have access to the funds to pay people to do it.
3) Actually, I could probably do alright selling Linux boxes, the problem comes with supporting those boxes. It takes a very well developed infrastructure to support Linux systems for home use. The problem is, again, there is no support and the future of the support is unclear (Nvidia could drop their Linux drivers tomorrow, etc.)


Seriously.... What is with you and trying to prove me wrong? People have their choices and the majority chooses MS. Sure MS owns 90% of the market.... but that's about (at least) 89% of the market that isn't complaining (minus whomever who hates it and will soon switch to something else). When you speak, you act as if you are representing everyone and that everyone hates MS. But, you forget that this community (and all NIX users) are a minority. Most people love MS.... and that's why it is used everywhere (shipped by OEM, in businesses, schools, etc). Not to mention they offer comercial support too :P

I don't have to try to prove you wrong, you are. And yes, the market IS complaining, which is why Microsoft is starting to striker interoperability deals with the likes of Novell, etc. I do not speak for everyone, I haven't even relayed my personal opinion about Microsoft to you (aside from a single paragraph in another post). I do not hate Microsoft, I do not even dislike Microsoft, but the fact remains that Microsoft is a monopoly, and that Windows is sub-par.

Again, you don't understand the way Microsoft has warped the whole supply/demand thing, do you? Microsoft has managed to get to the point that their platform creates the demand, while they have the supply too. You say schools LOVE MS? That is HARDLY a true statement, Schools use Microsoft products because Microsoft will give them massive discounts on them to the point that they're nearly free. This will (in-turn) teach the entire next generation how to use Windows, and ONLY Windows. Thereby creating a demand for this products in the future out of familiarity. OEMS.. we've been over this, and businesses... again, if they NEED software that is only available on Windows, then THAT is what they'll run.


Oh yeah Adamant.. I do graphic work using blender and it works great in Linux. And, there are plenty of businesses such as auto-engineering that use SPARC systems, and not windows. Also, Industrial Light And Magic use Mac. Hmm actually a lot of movie productions use Apple.
Did you just conveniently ignore the portion of this argument where I continually emphasized that unless your needs are 'highly specialized' you're stuck with Windows? /facepalm

Matakoo
May 20th, 2007, 06:47 PM
But, yes, Office 2003 won't work with Vista.

I must have had a very strange version of either Vista or Office 2003 then...since they worked together just fine. I didn't have to patch anything or do do some registry hacking either.

Vista is no longer installed but that has nothing to do with its inability to run Office 2003

mech7
May 20th, 2007, 07:23 PM
I must have had a very strange version of either Vista or Office 2003 then...since they worked together just fine. I didn't have to patch anything or do do some registry hacking either.

Vista is no longer installed but that has nothing to do with its inability to run Office 2003

Well i would not read to much into that :) most claims about ms software is not really accurate on this forum :)

Matakoo
May 20th, 2007, 09:03 PM
Well i would not read to much into that :) most claims about ms software is not really accurate on this forum :)

Probably not :) But a bit of logical thinking would be a good idea...it would have been suicidal of MS (no matter what your feelings are about their software and said software's quality) to make sure Vista and Office 2003 to be incompatible. There are too many people used to XP and Office around, and I'd say it's a safe bet that a fairly large number of those would be uncomfortable in switching both OS and Office-suite at the same time (not to mention that it would be hideously expensive). Thus, people would be unwilling to pay for an upgrade if that would mean their word processor would cease to work.

WalmartSniperLX
May 21st, 2007, 01:58 AM
I am available on every single IM client I have listed in my account. Please, by all means 'educate' me. I will privately rip any argument you can give me to shreds, if you would rather we have this conversation there. I also respond to every PM that is sent to me, so we can even continue this there. You are wrong, I have shown you you are wrong, and simply plugging your ears and putting a happy spin on what I say is not going to disprove me.

My father is an entrepreneur, and while I am do not have a college degree (yet) I am very close to local business owners and I am a member of the junior chamber of commerce locally, and have had every single business class that the local community college offers. These classes include such things as, 'Marketing', 'Entrepreneurship', and ' Economics'. So let's leave my personal education out of this.

Now, I am going to issue a query to you, and I would like you to respond to that. You can do so privately, or you can do so on this thread, I don't care. You repeatedly assert that people are choosing to support and use Microsoft Windows because 'That is where the money is'. Doesn't this very statement in itself imply that there is little to no money elsewhere? Doesn't it imply, by your own words, that since Microsoft is such a success, others are failures? Your very own logic supports my argument that people are not being given a choice, a real choice. Your entire argument is that 'People have a choice, they have a choice between making money or not', well sir, for businesses that is not any kind of a choice.


Because Microsoft is a monopoly.


Because Microsoft is a monopoly.


Because Microsoft is a monopoly.


Because Microsoft is a...

http://www.bewersdorff-online.de/monopoly/monopoly.gif



I caught this late.
1) Apple is a different beast entirely. Apple produces computers that are akin to video game consoles by design (OS is tied to the hardware). Apple strikes deals with hardware vendors to get what it needs for it's macs. It does not force them to work with them through market share. (Microsoft: "If you don't support us, you'll go broke really quick")

2) I do not have the technical education (programming experience) to do this, nor do I have access to the funds to pay people to do it.
3) Actually, I could probably do alright selling Linux boxes, the problem comes with supporting those boxes. It takes a very well developed infrastructure to support Linux systems for home use. The problem is, again, there is no support and the future of the support is unclear (Nvidia could drop their Linux drivers tomorrow, etc.)



I don't have to try to prove you wrong, you are. And yes, the market IS complaining, which is why Microsoft is starting to striker interoperability deals with the likes of Novell, etc. I do not speak for everyone, I haven't even relayed my personal opinion about Microsoft to you (aside from a single paragraph in another post). I do not hate Microsoft, I do not even dislike Microsoft, but the fact remains that Microsoft is a monopoly, and that Windows is sub-par.

Again, you don't understand the way Microsoft has warped the whole supply/demand thing, do you? Microsoft has managed to get to the point that their platform creates the demand, while they have the supply too. You say schools LOVE MS? That is HARDLY a true statement, Schools use Microsoft products because Microsoft will give them massive discounts on them to the point that they're nearly free. This will (in-turn) teach the entire next generation how to use Windows, and ONLY Windows. Thereby creating a demand for this products in the future out of familiarity. OEMS.. we've been over this, and businesses... again, if they NEED software that is only available on Windows, then THAT is what they'll run.


Did you just conveniently ignore the portion of this argument where I continually emphasized that unless your needs are 'highly specialized' you're stuck with Windows? /facepalm

Ok honestly Im sick of arguing with you. MS is not a monopoly. End of story. I am not wrong. YOU ARE USING LINUX. That alone proves they are not a monopoly. Also you are wrong about the MS/Novell deal. That deal was to allow MS programs compatibility with Linux and vice versa....

And I mention your education because you seem to lack to understand what makes a monopoly a monopoly and how CHOICES shape the economy. And, I am suprised you made it that far based on your observations on MS. People choose ms. It is because of POPULAR DEMAND that MS is number one. Again, most users DONT CARE. THEY JUST WANT A PC! The only people against it are NIX and Mac users, which is about 18% of the market for these reasons:

1) Windows is easy. NIX is 'harder' because it wasn't neccesarily based on user friendliness. Also Macs are easy, however some people consider them overpriced and/or find it easier to just buy a pc. Also the gaming community relies on MS because and only because developers LOVE developing for MS since they offer EXCELLENT TOOLS and benefits
2) Linux is free software and doesn't suit the everyday user who just wants to get things done, and have straight forward comercial support. Some distros offer comercial support but for an anual pricetag.
3) Most OEM manufactuers know that MS is in the lead, so they continue to support it knowing that they are targetting the majority of pc consumers, giving them a larger profit.

*Also another thing to think about:

In the gaming industry (from the developer's point of view) most developers choose Nvidia hardware because they offer the best deals, performance by demand, and support. Also they are currently the ONLY major/mainstream dedicated GPU manufactuer (just like how MS is the only mainstream software distributor). Because of that, are you going to say they are a monopoly? Well you probably arent because you don't want to look like a fool. But, that is the same reason why you consider MS a monopoly in a blunt summary. People choose MS because they offer so much. People choose NV because they offer so much. That's why they are so large and successful. You are wrong, and I told you I'm done.


Because Microsoft is a monopoly.


Because Microsoft is a monopoly.


Because Microsoft is a monopoly.


Because Microsoft is a...

And that just shows why people should listen to you....

Microsoft is NOT a monopoly. Infact my middle school used iMacs when OS 9 was the latest mac os. Not sure what they use now since it's been so long. Hmm.... wait guess what that means...? MS is not a monopoly.

aysiu
May 21st, 2007, 02:19 AM
WalmartSniperLX is using the term monopoly in its purist sense. One can have a virtual monopoly without having a pure monopoly. Read more here: Monopoly: A Brief Introduction (http://www.linfo.org/monopoly.html)

Adamant1988
May 21st, 2007, 02:24 AM
WalmartSniperLX is using the term monopoly in its purist sense. One can have a virtual monopoly without having a pure monopoly. Read more here: Monopoly: A Brief Introduction (http://www.linfo.org/monopoly.html)

I attempted to show him the more real definition using answers.com. Although, apparently, waving a sign in front of a blind person's face is not really that effective. I just wish he would have said he was blind earlier.

aysiu
May 21st, 2007, 02:28 AM
Sorry, I missed that link to Answers.com

Well, it's just a matter of semantics, I guess.

jerrylamos
May 21st, 2007, 02:29 AM
IBM had a lot! to do with getting Microsoft going. I worked at IBM for 42 years. After a while relations got very sour with Microsoft, so I'm considerably influenced by that mess.

IBM currently is pushing HARD on Linux. It's up to maybe 25% of its large main frame computers. By the way, their philosophy is Linux is "open" so you don't get it directly from IBM, you get it from Marist College in Poughkeepsie, NY (just happens to be the same city with the IBM large mainframe plant).

Now Novell is another company that when it is not succeeding in the marketplace turns to lawsuits. They've sued IBM among others. So when Novell bought Suse I thought there are a lot of other Linux distro's, I don't need to look at Suse.

Cheers, Jerry

Compucore
May 21st, 2007, 02:35 AM
IIf they did that like Novell. I would either switch to Dabien or go over to Fedora. I like the way ubuntu is right now. They should stay the way they are. KNowing microsoft. They would probably eat rest of the free world in it.

Compucore

Billy_McBong
May 21st, 2007, 02:47 AM
i would switch to some other distro not sure which one maybe debian or fedora

and MS IS a monopoly says the United States of America "Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

WalmartSniperLX
May 21st, 2007, 02:51 AM
Im sorry but I don't care what court history is shown (however I am reading it) because the US court system is just as corrupt as those who support the idea that MS monopolised their software distribution. Anyone can be tried or sued for anything in the USA. Just because the judge makes a decision doesn't mean they are correct by either ethical or moral standards. It's rather sad that the people are the ones who chose MS and made MS a success in a nation where the people make decisions. And, MS is charged for that?

Adamant1988
May 21st, 2007, 02:55 AM
Im sorry but I don't care what court history is shown (however I am reading it) because the US court system is just as corrupt as those who support the idea that MS monopolised their software distribution. Anyone can be tried or sued for anything in the USA. Just because the judge makes a decision doesn't mean they are correct by either ethical or moral standards. It's rather sad that the people are the ones who chose MS and made MS a success in a nation where the people make decisions. And, MS is charged for that?

Like aysiu said, and like you have been told before. It is possible to attain a virtual monopoly without actually being a 'real' (as in using the purest form of the word) Monopoly. Microsoft most certainly is a 'virtual monopoly'.

WalmartSniperLX
May 21st, 2007, 02:58 AM
Like aysiu said, and like you have been told before. It is possible to attain a virtual monopoly without actually being a 'real' (as in using the purest form of the word) Monopoly. Microsoft most certainly is a 'virtual monopoly'.

>.< Now you say it. I understand what he said but you were explaining that MS was a 'monopoly'. I still don't like the idea of a virtual monopoly. Whatever Im done. Truce. Done. Sorry for any bashing. Thanks for the discussion :P. But, as far as a true monopoly goes they aren't and that was my point. A virtual monopoly isn't the same.

jiminycricket
May 21st, 2007, 03:08 AM
Judge Jackon's undisputed findings of fact held up by appeals court in the US, although his remedy wasn't (today we see how well Ashcroft's is working, LOL).

Declared anti-competitive by European Commission and Court of First Instance (which they are waiting for on an appeal); non-compliant since 2004 court order to release compliant specifications. Structural remedy is on the table, according to Neelie Kroes.

WalmartSniperLX: look at some of Microsoft's threats to Linux in the past. Dell dropped Red Hat on the desktop in 2001 because of their threats. Look at why the Judge found that Apple Mac OS and GNU/Linux were not competitive to the Microsoft hegemony. Look at what Microsoft did to a competitive operating system called BeOS: when Be finally got Hitachi to load their computers up with BeOS (a dual boot with Windows), Microsoft stepped in and forced Hitachi to make sure the only option customers saw was Windows. BeOS was hidden.

Customers were denied no choice in the marketplace and had to pay the huge markups on Microsoft software. Same case with the Netscape-IE battle, where Microsoft lied in court that it was an unremoveable part of Windows (and customers were forced to pay, through Windows, for the development of a browser that later stagnated for several years). Same as what they did to Sun (I mean Microsoft) Java.

Where are Be and Netscape today?

They are the definition of anti-competitive. And since they have a monopoly, that is illegal.


III. MICROSOFT'S POWER IN THE RELEVANT MARKET

33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.

34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.


Why Macs and Linux don't mitigate Microsoft's monopoly power:


Empirical Evidence of the Applications Barrier to Entry

45. The experiences of IBM and Apple, Microsoft's most significant operating system rivals in the mid- and late 1990s, confirm the strength of the applications barrier to entry.


OS/2 Warp

46. IBM's inability to gain widespread developer support for its OS/2 Warp operating system illustrates how the massive Windows installed base makes it prohibitively costly for a rival operating system to attract enough developer support to challenge Windows. In late 1994, IBM introduced its Intel-compatible OS/2 Warp operating system and spent tens of millions of dollars in an effort to attract ISVs to develop applications for OS/2 and in an attempt to reverse- engineer, or "clone," part of the Windows API set. Despite these efforts, IBM could obtain neither significant market share nor ISV support for OS/2 Warp. Thus, although at its peak OS/2 ran approximately 2,500 applications and had 10% of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems, IBM ultimately determined that the applications barrier prevented effective competition against Windows 95. For that reason, in 1996 IBM stopped trying to convince ISVs to write for OS/2 Warp. IBM now targets the product at a market niche, namely enterprise customers (mainly banks) that are interested in particular types of application that run on OS/2 Warp. The fact that IBM no longer tries to compete with Windows is evidenced by the fact that it prices OS/2 Warp at about two-and-one-half times the price of Windows 98.

The Mac OS

47. The inability of Apple to compete effectively with Windows provides another example of the applications barrier to entry in operation. Although Apple's Mac OS supports more than 12,000 applications, even an inventory of that magnitude is not sufficient to enable Apple to present a significant percentage of users with a viable substitute for Windows. The absence of a large installed base, in turn, reinforces the disparity between the applications made available for the Mac OS and those made available for Windows, further inhibiting Apple's sales. The applications barrier thus prevents the Mac OS from hindering Microsoft's ability to control price, regardless of whether the Mac OS is regarded as being in the relevant market or not.

Fringe Operating Systems

48. The applications barrier to entry does not prevent non-Microsoft, Intel-compatible PC operating systems from attracting enough consumer demand and ISV support to survive. It does not even prevent vendors of those products from making a profit. The barrier does, however, prevent the products from drawing a significant percentage of consumers away from Windows.

49. As discussed above, Be markets an Intel-compatible PC operating system, called BeOS, that is specially suited to support multimedia functions. The operating system survives on a relatively minuscule number of applications (approximately 1,000) and a user base which, at around 750,000, is trivial compared to the number of Windows users. One of the reasons the BeOS can even attract that many users despite its small base of applications is that it advertises itself as a complement to, rather than as a substitute for, Windows. Although the BeOS could run an Intel-compatible PC system without Windows, it is almost always loaded on a system along with Windows. What is more, when these dual-loaded PC systems are turned on, Windows automatically boots; the user must then take affirmative steps to invoke the BeOS. While this scheme allows the BeOS to occupy a niche in the market, it does not place the product on a trajectory to replace Windows on a significant number of PCs. The special multimedia support provided by the BeOS may, for a small number of users, outweigh the disadvantages of maintaining two large, complex operating systems on one PC. Of that group, however, it is likely that only a tiny number of users will find that support so attractive that they would be willing to forego Windows, and its huge base of compatible applications, altogether.

50. The experience of the Linux operating system, a version of which runs on Intel- compatible PCs, similarly fails to refute the existence of an applications barrier to entry. Linux is an "open source" operating system that was created, and is continuously updated, by a global network of software developers who contribute their labor for free. Although Linux has between ten and fifteen million users, the majority of them use the operating system to run servers, not PCs. Several ISVs have announced their development of (or plans to develop) Linux versions of their applications. To date, though, legions of ISVs have not followed the lead of these first movers. Similarly, consumers have by and large shown little inclination to abandon Windows, with its reliable developer support, in favor of an operating system whose future in the PC realm is unclear. By itself, Linux's open-source development model shows no signs of liberating that operating system from the cycle of consumer preferences and developer incentives that, when fueled by Windows' enormous reservoir of applications, prevents non-Microsoft operating systems from competing.

Adamant1988
May 21st, 2007, 03:44 AM
>.< Now you say it. I understand what he said but you were explaining that MS was a 'monopoly'. I still don't like the idea of a virtual monopoly. Whatever Im done. Truce. Done. Sorry for any bashing. Thanks for the discussion :P. But, as far as a true monopoly goes they aren't and that was my point. A virtual monopoly isn't the same.

You're wrong, the only differences between a Virtual monopoly and a strictly defined monopoly are the amount of potential competitors. Microsoft exercises the full authority and power of a monopoly, the only reason they cannot be called a real monopoly is because they have gone to great lengths to keep at least one competitor in the running at all times. For example, where Microsoft bought stock in Apple as a good will gesture, the US government did not allow them to buy voting stock in Apple.

The only consumers that have choice of their PCs are either educated technical users (the people using OSes like Linux, BSD, BeOS, Haiku, etc.) or people involved in media creation (Professional Mac users). Either way, choosing to use either Linux or a Mac comes with a set of extreme disadvantages which are enforced by Microsoft's monopoly. (See: The current state of Linux hardware support)

Now, you say you don't like the idea of a virtual monopoly? You know what? I don't either. Because Virtual Monopolies are worse than real monopolies. Virtual monopolies are protected by the fact they keep their prey alive to toy with them, they are protected by people just like you who insist on using the strictest definition of the word in order to assert that people have a choice. A virtual monopoly like Microsoft has ALL the muscle of a real monopoly, but they're legally protected by the fact they were smart enough to keep a competitor or two around.

But make no mistake, Microsoft could, at any given moment, DESTROY any competitor in the software market, they could RUIN any OEM that doesn't play nicely with them. IF Microsoft says jump, you jump, or they bankrupt your company so fast you won't know what hit you. If you're a competitor, it's even worse, they use 'Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish' to get rid of you, with lawsuits as a chaser if the first method was not effective.

No, I'd rather put up with a real monopoly.. those are subject to the law.

bsell
May 21st, 2007, 03:47 AM
I hate to break up the monopoly on the monopoly talk, but I doubt Canonical will sign a deal with Microsoft like Novell did even though Microsoft has Canonical in their sights.

WalmartSniperLX
May 21st, 2007, 06:50 AM
You're wrong, the only differences between a Virtual monopoly and a strictly defined monopoly are the amount of potential competitors. Microsoft exercises the full authority and power of a monopoly, the only reason they cannot be called a real monopoly is because they have gone to great lengths to keep at least one competitor in the running at all times. For example, where Microsoft bought stock in Apple as a good will gesture, the US government did not allow them to buy voting stock in Apple.

The only consumers that have choice of their PCs are either educated technical users (the people using OSes like Linux, BSD, BeOS, Haiku, etc.) or people involved in media creation (Professional Mac users). Either way, choosing to use either Linux or a Mac comes with a set of extreme disadvantages which are enforced by Microsoft's monopoly. (See: The current state of Linux hardware support)

Now, you say you don't like the idea of a virtual monopoly? You know what? I don't either. Because Virtual Monopolies are worse than real monopolies. Virtual monopolies are protected by the fact they keep their prey alive to toy with them, they are protected by people just like you who insist on using the strictest definition of the word in order to assert that people have a choice. A virtual monopoly like Microsoft has ALL the muscle of a real monopoly, but they're legally protected by the fact they were smart enough to keep a competitor or two around.

But make no mistake, Microsoft could, at any given moment, DESTROY any competitor in the software market, they could RUIN any OEM that doesn't play nicely with them. IF Microsoft says jump, you jump, or they bankrupt your company so fast you won't know what hit you. If you're a competitor, it's even worse, they use 'Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish' to get rid of you, with lawsuits as a chaser if the first method was not effective.

No, I'd rather put up with a real monopoly.. those are subject to the law.

Well I wouldn't say I am wrong. Looks like you are still at height due to our argument. I think it is a vast difference because virtual monopolies have competitors and monopolies dont. The fact that you are comparing a situation where the people still have a choice and do not can be debatable on whether it is a small or large, impacting difference. But even if you disagree, I am still right. You even proved it yourself :


You're wrong, the only differences... And like I said, they're different. Difference is not measurable by the extent because they still differ. :P And, MS is not a pure monopoly, and that was my point all along.

EDIT: And also you are correct when you say virtual monopolies are worse... but it is not always true. It depends on the point of view. If you are a businessman trying to earn a living in the same feild as the virtual monopoly, at least you can still compete. If there were a monopoly, you would have to work for them, and your freedoms will be limited. Otherwise, you just can't go into that feild of the market because you will be shut out before your business even took off the ground. However this can happen in the scenario of a virtual monopoly as well. So they're equally bad.

WalmartSniperLX
May 21st, 2007, 06:54 AM
Judge Jackon's undisputed findings of fact held up by appeals court in the US, although his remedy wasn't (today we see how well Ashcroft's is working, LOL).

Declared anti-competitive by European Commission and Court of First Instance (which they are waiting for on an appeal); non-compliant since 2004 court order to release compliant specifications. Structural remedy is on the table, according to Neelie Kroes.

WalmartSniperLX: look at some of Microsoft's threats to Linux in the past. Dell dropped Red Hat on the desktop in 2001 because of their threats. Look at why the Judge found that Apple Mac OS and GNU/Linux were not competitive to the Microsoft hegemony. Look at what Microsoft did to a competitive operating system called BeOS: when Be finally got Hitachi to load their computers up with BeOS (a dual boot with Windows), Microsoft stepped in and forced Hitachi to make sure the only option customers saw was Windows. BeOS was hidden.

Customers were denied no choice in the marketplace and had to pay the huge markups on Microsoft software. Same case with the Netscape-IE battle, where Microsoft lied in court that it was an unremoveable part of Windows (and customers were forced to pay, through Windows, for the development of a browser that later stagnated for several years). Same as what they did to Sun (I mean Microsoft) Java.

Where are Be and Netscape today?

They are the definition of anti-competitive. And since they have a monopoly, that is illegal.




Why Macs and Linux don't mitigate Microsoft's monopoly power:

Thanks for bringing this up. I didn't know MS was trying so hard to literally lock out everyone else. I knew they were growing in popularity thru taste but didn't know they were bullies. Sorry all. Well at least Im at a good start at not using Windows.

WalmartSniperLX
May 21st, 2007, 07:32 AM
Now I know this is completely off topic to the thread but is there any way to make a comeback, and take back some of the market using opensource?

This is actually my goal in life, and has been even before this discussion. ;):D I mean, opensource doesn't mean free of profit. People can still get paid to work on OSS and even have the rights to sell their programs and make some moola :P The only problem is that we're going to need a lot of financial support.... I mean lots.. right? Because we need hardware support as well.

Zyphrexi
May 21st, 2007, 08:14 AM
I missed the option: contract a horde of Mongols to assault MS.

ninjas work equally as well. ah... or robotic explody penguinsh! weehaa!

sorry, this topic was just getting way too serious.:popcorn:

bullgr
May 21st, 2007, 08:23 AM
i love ubuntu and i will fight, complain against the deal and wait what happens...
i the deal still remain, then i switch to another debian based distro.

Zyphrexi
May 21st, 2007, 05:55 PM
yeah but doesn't this concept of canonical 'selling out' conflict with the ubuntu philosophy?

steveneddy
May 26th, 2007, 05:31 AM
I must have had a very strange version of either Vista or Office 2003 then...since they worked together just fine. I didn't have to patch anything or do do some registry hacking either.

Vista is no longer installed but that has nothing to do with its inability to run Office 2003

This is not from personal experience, this quote came from my neighbor who said he bought the software and he claimed that it didn't work. I have not now as I didn't then, any desire to go look at his machine and actually verify that it indeed didn't work or was unable to install this version of Office on him version of Vista.

I apologize if I was inaccurate in this quote and I never meant to misrepresent Windows position in any way.

It is still funny that he spent so much money and is still having problems.

I don't use Windows in any form except at work where I have no choice.

I was just amused at this story and was sharing what I believed would be a humorous anecdote for all to share. I am not actually a big fan of anything Microsoft, personally, and I am still amazed at the way people will go out and buy new software from a company that has a reputation for shipping buggy software on a regular basis.

People are like sheep and will follow the leader, always.

aysiu
June 5th, 2007, 04:34 AM
New developments since the Xandros deal with Microsoft.

Continue further discussion on this topic in What would you do if Ubuntu did a Suse/Xandros-style deal? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=464669)