[NEWS] Is Microsoft Still a Monopoly?

[Mr.Guvernment]

Well, i do agree with what is said below, are they really a monopoly still?

In EU they are being forced to remove products from THEIR software that THEY made and now possibly being forced to put in 3rd party parts!

I think that is unreal - that is like tell Coke, they have to sell Pepsi in their vending machines... ?

I think people are going to far against Microsoft and simply want to see them fail, then when another company cant provide and innovate like MS has done - and you can not deny that, then they will cry about the other companies being a monopoly....

whine whine whine, is that all people do these days?



+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Is Microsoft Still a Monopoly? |
| from the the-times-they-are-a-changing dept. |
| posted by Roblimo on Monday December 26, @12:48 (Editorial) |
| http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/26/1414209 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

Microsoft Windows still dominates the desktop. But in many other areas,
including Web servers and supercomputing, Microsoft is just one player
among many, and often a weak player at that. On the gaming side, despite
the latest xBox getting all kinds of media buzz as "the" console to buy,
Sony's Playstation outsells the xBox at least two to one, and many
analysts expect Sony to widen that gap even more when Playstation 3 comes
out in the Spring of 2006. On the Internet, MSN and MSN Search are so far
behind AOL and Google that it isn't funny. And even on the desktop, Linux
keeps getting stronger, while Mac OS X is commonly accepted as more
reliable, secure, and user-oriented than Windows. So why do we keep
saying Microsoft is a monopoly?

This story continues at:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/26/1414209

Discuss this story at:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=05/12/26/1414209

[Flip-Mode]

M$ is a monopoly but it shouldn't be forced to change its products or change components of the products.
No other company can make new OS as every software and game out there is made to run on XP or some other form of Windows.

[rseven]

Microsoft made their own problem in Europe. The thought they were so big and powerful that governments could not tell them what to do. They are finding out that is not the case. Good! If governments do not control giant corporations then giant corporations will control governments. This has happened in the USA and it's not a pretty picture.

[Battle_Rattle]

Your Coke and Pepsi analogy is weak.... That fact there's Coke AND Pepsi is the simple reason why. There's no Microsoft AND ________ really.

When Microsoft pulls crap like not being able to uninstall Media Player then they deserve what they get in a litigation sense.

If your overall premise is "are they a monopoly still" then I would ask other questions rather than start off that way

[Goateh]

Are they still a monopoly? Yes. Do they deserve to be? Yes.

I agree with the comments Mr.Guvernment made, but they do corner the market in the whole Operating system thing. Who else is going to challenge a company that large? Personally I like Microsoft, don't have a problem with them at all.

Just because you can't uninstall the obstructive media player, doesn't mean you have to use it (I prefer media player classic or VLC)

[Bender]

Solution: learn Linux :)

[Flip-Mode]

Solution: learn Linux :)
I would but I use my computer mainly for gaming and Linux gaming support is weak.

[Mr.Guvernment]

Is it MS fualt that NO one can come together to create a competitive O/S ?

no, so why should they be punished for the lack of someone else's ability?

My analogy isnt weak really

Mac O/S
Linux
Lindows

there are other system out there - but why arent they better? cause people arent making them better

Linux - HOW many linux developers are out there? probably ALOT more then MS has yet they cant come togethe as 1 and make something better.

i know this is not true to all linux users, but i think far too many have fat ego's and think.

"well, why help out Fedora, i am going to make my own version of linux!"

"Why make an easier installer - i dont need it! so lets make it a pain in the ass to install some drivers"


There could be a better solution then windows - if people in the "OpenSource" community pulled together a little more and made it.

Fedora is a step in the right direction but persnally - until Linux has an easier way like the .exe /.msi to install programs - it will never become main stream.

Is it MS fault that Linux Gaming is weak? Nope, it is Linux's fualt i always thought for changing too often, for their being SO many various of linux.

K, what company of linux should we design our game for today? Debian? redhat? slackware?

Linux community needs to get it arse in gear and when it does, it can take over MS.

And forcing a company to change their product is BS - MS didnt run any government - MS offered a better product for the task and provided it.

I am sure the Government of the world would LOVE to pay $0 for an O/S - so why arent they on Linux? must be some dam good reasons why.......


P.S - you CAN uninstall Media player / messeneger - even remove most links to IE simply by editing one .inf file.

[Captain Newbie]

Apparently, a bunch of us long-haired college students pose a significant threat to the monopoly, if the reactions of Steve Ballmer are to be believed.

[Mr.Guvernment]

i would love to see some threats - back to the article, look where MS is not a monopoly and is getting their arses handed to them ?

Server market
Search engines

so all they got is the desktop O/S - i am sure some other things, but go back a few years and most servers in the world were--- MS based....

[K15]

I wouldn't add the Xbox into the mix, video games are and always have been, very weird products and they don't fit with other products very well. Nintendo was huge, then Sega kicked Nintendo off #1, then Sony kicked Nintendo AND Sega in the balls, M$ is now trying to do the same to Sony. However both companies are HUGELY powerful with massive incomes from many other sources, aside from gaming consoles.

M$ is a monopoly when it comes to operating systems. Yes they innovate, yes computers now are SO easy to use compared to ones 10-20 years ago. However, when it comes to QUALITY, STABILITY, Microsoft suffers. For example, I had a driver problem (there were no conflicts in device manager) however I could not boot to windows normally, only in safe mode. A GOOD operating system would not let a driver problem bring it down like that. What Windows SHOULD be designed to do is, if a driver refuses to load, terminate it and either load a generic driver or don't load a driver at all for that device. My driver problem was with 3rd party SATA/PATA drivers that wouldn't load. So XP, instead of LOCKING UP while booting, just terminate those drivers and LOAD YOUR OWN PATA/SATA DRIVERS!!
Also, there is this talk of trusted computing, that is TOTAL BS. An OS's JOB is it RUN a computer, NOT lock the user out of files or programs that "aren't legal".
It's like car makers designing speed limiters in cars for 70MPH under the justification that "well if you are going faster than 70MPH, then it's illegal so you shouldn't do that. So we will be ******** and won't let you".
It is a person's DECISION to do illegal activities. If they want to run illegal software and media, let them. They may get caught, they may not, but the point is an operating system's PRIMARY job is to be the buffer between USER and HARDWARE and allow both systems to communicate. It is NOT to limit what the USER can open and use.
There are much worse things a person can do besides downloading MP3s and a couple programs. Besides all that, downloading MP3s is LEGAL in Canada, so what do we do when the new Windows doesn't allow us to open MP3s, even though it is 100% LEGAL in our country?!!!!
I am not for software and movie piracy, but that doesn't mean i'm for trusted computing either :argue: :argue: :bang head

[Amarkarian]

bro, all this bitching about microsoft does this microsoft does that, they can do whatever the hell they want, its there product, there idea, they own it. there a monopoly cuz they made the best product.

[dfonda]

I want them to be a monopoly....Its hard enough keeping all my crap running right with out competition! :)

[K15]

bro, all this bitching about microsoft does this microsoft does that, they can do whatever the hell they want, its there product, there idea, they own it. there a monopoly cuz they made the best product.



I have to laugh. A company doesn't become powerful simply because they make good products. It's a large part, sure, but not the whole picture. M$'s marketing, buy-outs and stealing was all timed just wonderfully to force a monopoly. As a single example, the MS-DOS installed on the very first IBM PCs was NOT written by Microsoft. There are dozens more examples of why Microsoft is not a good company.
Don't get me wrong, I actually like XP and think it's the best OS Microsoft has ever come out with, but Linux is still the BETTER operating system hands down.
The only reason so many more people like XP is because it is SO easy to use. It is NOT, read this over many times, XP is NOT the better operating system! It's just easy to use and EVERYTHING has support for it. When something has 95% market share, it doesn't have to be the best product, and XP most certainly isn't.

[mdameron]

I want them to be a monopoly....Its hard enough keeping all my crap running right with out competition! :)

YES!!! Can you imagine what software developers would do if there were 2 completely different popular OSes on the desktop market, each controlling half? Or worse, 3? You'd HOPE they'd write for all of them... You'd end up with ports on games, and developers signing agreements for an OS to write for them only, much like 'xbox only' games, and 'ps2 only' games. Shoot, there are productivity apps that are buggy and not stable right now... I can't imagine the developer having to worry about different platforms stability too. ::shivers::

Current Joe Schmoes don't even know how to use all of windows' features as it is, I'd be worried if their job places switched platforms or something... at least 80% of the current computer using population would have to learn something entirely new, and I know I wouldn't want to teach a 40 year old to learn new tricks, changing everything he's ever known and gotten used to, just so the gov't would STFU. Still can't get people to RTFM, can you image 3 manuals?!?!

I like the desktop OS market as it is right now... Servers and other markets can go to other OSes for all I care.

[mdameron]

I have to laugh. A company doesn't become powerful simply because they make good products. It's a large part, sure, but not the whole picture. M$'s marketing, buy-outs and stealing was all timed just wonderfully to force a monopoly. As a single example, the MS-DOS installed on the very first IBM PCs was NOT written by Microsoft. There are dozens more examples of why Microsoft is not a good company.
Don't get me wrong, I actually like XP and think it's the best OS Microsoft has ever come out with, but Linux is still the BETTER operating system hands down.
The only reason so many more people like XP is because it is SO easy to use. It is NOT, read this over many times, XP is NOT the better operating system! It's just easy to use and EVERYTHING has support for it. When something has 95% market share, it doesn't have to be the best product, and XP most certainly isn't.

Easiest and most efficient = better to me... the desktop user. I don't want to be a coder just to be able to browse the internet and play games, that's for people with much more time on their hands. I like the simplicity and broad range of compatibility... until something comes along that can do what windows has done in terms of compatibility and ease of use, it's clear what I'll be using. Enough headaches and hair pulling as it is, I don't want anymore, just because I didn't put the ; in the right place.

[K15]

Easiest and most efficient = better to me... the desktop user. I don't want to be a coder just to be able to browse the internet and play games, that's for people with much more time on their hands. I like the simplicity and broad range of compatibility... until something comes along that can do what windows has done in terms of compatibility and ease of use, it's clear what I'll be using. Enough headaches and hair pulling as it is, I don't want anymore, just because I didn't put the ; in the right place.



Easiest, maybe. Most efficient, absolutely not. Linux is incredibly easy to use. It comes with any program you would need (Firefox, GAIM, XMMS etc) has quite a bit of software and driver support now. Also in terms of efficiency, Linux uses WAY less RAM than XP does, WAY less. Almost everything is as point-and-click as it is in XP. File copying, internet browsing, working with pictures, files, programs etc. Sure there IS a lot more complex ways of working with it, but you don't have to do that to use it.
Linux Knoppix had driver support for my 5 year old Pentium 3 just fine as well as my new rig in my sig (rhyme :) Pop the CD in, reboot and there it comes, with everything running fine. Open Firefox, web page right there with zero set up. Open XMMS and it plays my Winamp playlists just fine.

Anyhow, if you like XP, fine, but if you are calling XP the best, I SURELY hope you have tried Linux (or at least OSX). Calling something the best when you haven't used the alternatives doesn't make much sense.

[MisterEd]

AT&T is an example of a monopoly that was handled by the government. At one time they were the Phone Company. Look at all the competition and innovation that resulted from their breakup.

Why do you think Microsoft is so rich? Because it is a monopoly. If there really was real competition then Windows and other Microsoft products would be cheaper and perhaps even better. Microsoft only improves its products when forced to. Before the DOJ and other government entities stepped in Microsoft was moving toward a subscription service for all its products. Instead of buying a license and upgrading when were ready you would be forced to pay a monthly subscription. Microsoft was doing this for two reasons: 1) people were not upgrading to new versions fast enough, and 2) they wanted a more predictable and steady cash flow to make their stock holders happier. Microsoft also has been participating in a lot of practices to kill competition. This is what laws involving monopolies were supposed to prevent. Unfortunately the government had waited so long that doing anything now would help in the long run but hurt the US economy a lot in the short run. All the penalties they have received so far have been only slaps on the wrist. If Microsoft had been broken up years ago by the government then maybe we would have been better off. Maybe not. Laws that govern monopolies were never meant to make things easier for us. After all long distance was a lot easier to deal with when AT&T owned it but preserving competition and innovation was something that needed to be preserved.

[tenchi86]

Personally I tend to think it's their software and they can do with it as they like. It is up to us if we choose to use that software. The thing about all this is though, I don't think MS really created itself a monoply on the market. Though the 3rd party programs and joe six pack have. The fact is that MS has controlled a large maybe to large % of the market for some time, the result of this is that no programs are devolped for other OSes and in turn Joe Six pack does not bother trying to mess with another OS. I mean after all why would he, the dell he just bought already has XP on it and can run everything he wants it to. The main reason I do not see this as a monopoly is by def a monopoly is exclusive control or rights to something. Though MS does have a large % of the market they do not have exclusive rights to the market and are really doing nothing more then selling their software bundled with some other their other programs. Which I think anyone who is trying to run a business would do, after all it makes sense to give your customers the power they need and in turn giving that power through your own programs. Anyway it's late here so most of what I just said probably makes no sense so let me just sum it up saying. Though MS controls the vast majority of the computer market, they do not by definition have a monopoly and are really just promoting thier software like any business does. They just happened to be lucky enough right now to be pre installed on every dell and HP system that leaves the shelves. That in turn could be related to an old monolpoly they had on the market, though that does not mean they are still mopolizing the market, simply riding the the shock wave of their previouse doings.

[MisterEd]

Having exclusive control is not required. Think about this "The Clayton Antitrust Act defined more clearly what constituted illegal restraint of trade. The act outlawed price discrimination that gave certain buyers an advantage over others; forbade agreements in which manufacturers sell only to dealers who agree not to sell a rival manufacturer's products...".

When Microsoft did not like that Netscape had a bigger market share at one time. Did they compete fairly by making a better browser and convince people to buy it? No, they undercut Netscape by giving away Internet Explorer and forcing computer manufactuers to have it on the desktop and forbid them from installing a competing browser instead.

Forcing computer manufacturers to only install Windows on their computers also violated the The Clayton Antitrust Act. It is a mute point now since there is no REAL competition to Windows. (Do not harp about linux. I have used it for almost ten years. It is a long way from being on the same level of usability and support as Windows).

[MRD]

Microsoft is still a monopoly, and the government should step in and dismantle the corporation, levy large fines, and force full disclosure so as to encourage a more competitive environment. The basis of capitalism is competition. With competition, there are multiple options that allow for consumers to choose the best (or best priced) solution to a given problem. M$ has a long history of using illegal, unfair, and predatory business practices to destroy anyone that wants to offer consumers choice and freedom.

If Microsoft had its way, everything would be locked down with trusted/treacherous computing. No one would be able to create any kind of competing product as M$ would prevent that product from working with its products, effectively making the user of the new product unable to interface with the rest of the world. Large media corporatios and M$ would completely control our desktops and all of our electronics. Our rights and privileges would be sacrificed as they are not so important to the large megacorporations as the small chance that we might do something illegal with one of their products.

We are living in a very dangerous time. If we do not take action now to preserve our freedoms, then we will lose them all and enter into a digital totalitarian society, a digital 1984, with Bill as Big Brother.

While the US government is completely sold out to the corporations, foreign governments are not so easily manipulated, especially Europe. While we have software patents here, allowing the patenting of such trivial things as "one click ordering" or "scroll bars", Europe will not allow this to happen, which will keep competition alive. I'm an American, but the way we have allowed M$ to dominate the computer world and extinguish competitor after competitor makes me embarassed to admit it.

[rseven]

You guys are correct. It has been over 35 years since I studied US History. but I remember the Sherman Antitrust act but not the Clayton? Then again, I don't remember my name either. :confused:

[zexmarquies01]

Microsoft is still a monopoly, and the government should step in and dismantle the corporation, levy large fines, and force full disclosure so as to encourage a more competitive environment. The basis of capitalism is competition. With competition, there are multiple options that allow for consumers to choose the best (or best priced) solution to a given problem. M$ has a long history of using illegal, unfair, and predatory business practices to destroy anyone that wants to offer consumers choice and freedom.

If Microsoft had its way, everything would be locked down with trusted/treacherous computing. No one would be able to create any kind of competing product as M$ would prevent that product from working with its products, effectively making the user of the new product unable to interface with the rest of the world. Large media corporatios and M$ would completely control our desktops and all of our electronics. Our rights and privileges would be sacrificed as they are not so important to the large megacorporations as the small chance that we might do something illegal with one of their products.

We are living in a very dangerous time. If we do not take action now to preserve our freedoms, then we will lose them all and enter into a digital totalitarian society, a digital 1984, with Bill as Big Brother.

While the US government is completely sold out to the corporations, foreign governments are not so easily manipulated, especially Europe. While we have software patents here, allowing the patenting of such trivial things as "one click ordering" or "scroll bars", Europe will not allow this to happen, which will keep competition alive. I'm an American, but the way we have allowed M$ to dominate the computer world and extinguish competitor after competitor makes me embarassed to admit it.


not a single person on this forum could have said it better man! If i could, i'd use this entire post as a Quote for my sig. sadly, its to long though.

you are 100% correct on this though.

its not that microsoft is a monopoly anymore. Its just that they FORCED away all their competition when they was a monopoly. And they pushed back the compeition so hard, that any possible compeditors were crippled, and couldn't make a come back, and the new ones are to scared to stand up agenst the all mighty Microsoft.

While i don't agree with the fact that they should be FORCED to remove their own personal product from their own personal product, there SHOULD be more government involvement to allow competition.

And microsoft has the government ( in the US ) wrapped around their fingers with the whole DRM stuff. They tell the government that they can help stop piracy, and then the government then lets MS do what they want. When they don't realize that microsoft is just doing this to gain more controll.

Sure, guns kill people. but we can still go to Walmart and buy a shotgun, or a handgun. Same idea with piracy. if someone wants to do something illegal, let them! they will eventually pay for their actions! but don't let a company stop people from using their personal property to its full extent!

like said earlier, Downloading music in canada is LEGAL. So MS's DRM crap is going to stop what people in other country's can LEGALLY do.

Microsoft should be more worried about making software thats more efficient, crashes less, has less Holes for people to exploit. Instead of worrying about piracy, and stuff that THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR TO BEGIN WITH. MS is NOT liable if someone downloads music online illegally, While running a MS O/S! so that shouldn't be their concern! a QUALITY program SHOULD be their concern.

Its all about power. if they can't be a real monopoly, they will just add a new definition of monoply in the dictionary!

[MRD]

As technology has evolved, the basic problems of monopolies have really changed. It used to be that you were worried about monopolies like standard oil. However, anyone back then could have produced oil/gas. It might have been a bit more money, but it would still work in your car. If you didn't want to buy from standard oil, you could pay a bit more and get oil from joe shmoe's oil and gas company.

High tech items do not work the same way. Due to the tremendous specificity required for components to interoperate, compatibility is what enforces monopolies. Take OS's for example. Yes, linux is a competitor to windows. So is OSX. However, they are not drop in replacements for Windows in the way that another company's gas can replace Standard Oil's gas. A program or driver made for one os will not work on another.

Because of this, we must redefine how we deal with monopolies legally. What we need to start requiring is that companies that make critically important products, like M$, release specifications to allow others to create clones or software that interfaces with them effectively. Also, we must not allow software patents that enforce monopolies. If we want competition, people must be allowed to create products that provide the same function as existing products in every way. This is the only way to ensure competition in the highly technological world we are living in.

[futura2001]

Because of this, we must redefine how we deal with monopolies legally. What we need to start requiring is that companies that make critically important products, like M$, release specifications to allow others to create clones or software that interfaces with them effectively. Also, we must not allow software patents that enforce monopolies. If we want competition, people must be allowed to create products that provide the same function as existing products in every way. This is the only way to ensure competition in the highly technological world we are living in.
What?!?! This model may work in the happy land of loonix where everyone shares all source code and they all frolick in pastoral fields and bla bla bla, but in the real world where corporations that have a vested interest in actually, um... making money are developing the software, it all falls to hell. You can't release product specifications and allow the competition to clone your product and still expect to make money. IBM tried this with their personal computers, and guess what? I don't see too many IBM PCs anymore. Fact of the matter is that if someone releases their product specs, someone else is going to come along, produce it for less money, and steal the initial company's profits. This is why we have patents: so somebody else doesn't come along and start making money form my product.
We must not allow patents that help enforce monopolies? Patents by nature enforce monopolies. You can't just say that because something is the most widely successful product on the market, the patent has to be revoked because it enforces a monopoly. Or that because something is the only product of its kind on the market, the patent is null and void because there is no competition.

Is Microsoft still a monopoly?
Yeah, you damn well better believe it. Quite frankly, Microsoft has been a monopoly since it first routed *nix back to the server market where change is bad and left Apple to the snobs of the computing world. And now, ten years after the 1995 of Windows, the world is even more under Microsoft control. Kudos Microsoft. With a shrewd purchase of Seattle Computer Products' Quick and Dirty Operating System in 1980, Microsoft set the stage to dominate the world of operating systems. Can we blame Microsoft for their shrewd, and often predatory business practices?
Take a look at the much publicized Internet Explorer fiasco for instance. When IE was released, Netscape was the titan. In fact, Netscape had been a titan since its beta release, a fact attributed to the fact that it was a far superior product to anything else available at the time. Then came Internet Explorer, a product from Microsoft that came bundled with their operating system, and promised greater integration into the operating system itself than any third party product could offer. In this respect, Microsoft was justified to release it with their OS. They developed IE to work seamlessly with Windows and to ultimately help run Windows itself. This is something that Netscape could never do without Windows source code, and that isn't likely to occur.
Furthermore, Microsoft has often left innovation for someone else to do, and instead has focused on developing products similar to current hot products, and bundling them with their own software suites. Why should I pay for a web browser when I can just get one for free with Windows? Is this any different from other operating systems? No, Apple has Safari, and *nix has... Lynx and about a thousand other browsers that offer varying levels of functionality.
Microsoft exists to make money. By making money, they are inevitably going to cause a loss of profits for somebody else. By making lots of money, they are inevitably going to push smaller competitors out of business. This is how the world of business works, and to deny it is to deny reality itself. But to punish them for being successful is akin to handicapping an opposing football team for being a superior competitor.
What do I think Microsoft needs to do in the future? Well, for starters they need to get Vista out the door so that I can upgrade from 2K. After that, I think that they should begin to hybridize the Windows operating system with *nix framework. While this may sound insane for company that has spent so much money trying to eliminate *nix, the best solution may be to absorb *nix. Why? Well, for one, there is a huge amount of development going into *nix on both a personal and corporate level that Microsoft could do well to make use of. Why fight the hoard when you can take all that they have developed and use it to develop a superior product? Not only this, but Microsoft would be heralded for bridging the gap between operating systems and creating a new level of interconnectivity. Microsoft already has the brand recognition; by stepping into the *nix arena and providing a more functional and easier to use product than already exists, they would only ensure their dominance.
Which is something they really need to work on, since the new kid on the black, Google, has shown interest in branching out into every arena it has a fighting chance at. The main reasons why there isn't a formal GoogleOS and Google Browser are that Microsoft continues to dominate these areas and there is little chance that a newcomer could come in and redefine the power structure...

[WingsofGOD]

There could be a better solution then windows - if people in the "OpenSource" community pulled together a little more and made it.
There is, i use it...
Fedora is a step in the right direction but persnally - until Linux has an easier way like the .exe /.msi to install programs - it will never become main stream.
Have you acutally used a linux distro this decade? Can't get much easier than point and click.. Suse/fedora,etc..
Is it MS fault that Linux Gaming is weak? Nope, it is Linux's fualt i always thought for changing too often, for their being SO many various of linux.
Linux is Linux, it does not matter what distro it is on. It is extremely obvious, that you know next to nothing about this subject. This would be like me explaining all the downfalls of a BMW 300, i dont have one, haven't driven one..

K, what company of linux should we design our game for today? Debian? redhat? slackware?
Once again..... Linux is Linux, you should join a linux forum and read up on the subject before posting.

[Mr.Guvernment]

. But to punish them for being successful is akin to handicapping an opposing football team for being a superior competitor.


:D my thoughts exactly. very good post and it hits very true points.

[Mr.Guvernment]

Have you acutally used a linux distro this decade? Can't get much easier than point and click.. Suse/fedora,etc..


yes Fedora 2/3 and 4, recently 4 and the point and click's i tried werent so straight forward - you had to go into the shell and enable this, or start this etc, so it is still not as easy as windows is it seems for what usage i had of it. Also hoping i got the right vesion of the program for the version of linux i had.


Linux is Linux, it does not matter what distro it is on. It is extremely obvious, that you know next to nothing about this subject. This would be like me explaining all the downfalls of a BMW 300, i dont have one, haven't driven one..


So the why does MySQL have about 10 diff, Linux download versions? PHP ? Apache ? if linux is linux ? and other programs and drivers? I had always thought Linux was linux - one kernal, they all used it, but they all seem to vary......


I am not bashing Linux - just pointing out issue i found with it and i am sure many many others do as well, the points i say are legit, Why do you think Linux is not more popular on the desktop since you seem to know so much about it ? You seem to be very defensive about it......

[futura2001]

Linux is Linux, it does not matter what distro it is on. It is extremely obvious, that you know next to nothing about this subject. This would be like me explaining all the downfalls of a BMW 300, i dont have one, haven't driven one..

Once again..... Linux is Linux, you should join a linux forum and read up on the subject before posting.
Aren't you being a bit arrogant?
Last I checked, it does matter what distro you are running, what kernel version you are running, what GUI you are running, and so on.
And shall we look at what happened in 2005, alone?
Oh! The Kernel went from 2.6.12 in June, to 2.6.13 in August, to 2.6.14 in October! 3 updates to the kernel itself in a matter of 5 months.
Enlightenment is supposedly up to 0.17, but the last stable release is 0.16.7.2... and even that is buggy. Gnome 2.10 was released in March and 2.12 was released in September. KDE when from 3.4.1-3 to 3.5 in 2005 alone. And these are just the big names alone.
Now imagine trying to program something that will universally work in every Linux environment and every configuration. You think programmers have a hard time trying to program support for the myriad of different hardware configurations as it is? Try doing that and accounting for the different software configurations of linux as well.
The truth is, while Linux may or may not be a stable OS, the development community is by no means stable, and this will continue to hamper corporate efforts to program applications for Linux. Nobody particularly wants to test software for 6000 different configurations of the OS itself, and nobody wants to program software patches whenever a new update comes out for something that causes an incompatibility. While Windows is not immune from these woes, it certainly does not have such issues to the level that Linux does.
To think that in its current state Linux is ready to be a business and consumer grade OS is optimistic at best and stupid at worst.

[WingsofGOD]

So the why does MySQL have about 10 diff, Linux download versions? PHP ? Apache ?
Because they are tailored to PHP, Apache, etc...
Enlightenment is supposedly up to 0.17, but the last stable release is 0.16.7.2... and even that is buggy. Gnome 2.10 was released in March and 2.12 was released in September. KDE when from 3.4.1-3 to 3.5 in 2005 alone. And these are just the big names alone.
What does the window manager have to do with anything? You don't program for a WINDOW MANAGER, again, looks like you also know nothing about the subject.

Try again...

[mdameron]

Aren't you being a bit arrogant?
Last I checked, it does matter what distro you are running, what kernel version you are running, what GUI you are running, and so on.
And shall we look at what happened in 2005, alone?
Oh! The Kernel went from 2.6.12 in June, to 2.6.13 in August, to 2.6.14 in October! 3 updates to the kernel itself in a matter of 5 months.
Enlightenment is supposedly up to 0.17, but the last stable release is 0.16.7.2... and even that is buggy. Gnome 2.10 was released in March and 2.12 was released in September. KDE when from 3.4.1-3 to 3.5 in 2005 alone. And these are just the big names alone.
Now imagine trying to program something that will universally work in every Linux environment and every configuration. You think programmers have a hard time trying to program support for the myriad of different hardware configurations as it is? Try doing that and accounting for the different software configurations of linux as well.
The truth is, while Linux may or may not be a stable OS, the development community is by no means stable, and this will continue to hamper corporate efforts to program applications for Linux. Nobody particularly wants to test software for 6000 different configurations of the OS itself, and nobody wants to program software patches whenever a new update comes out for something that causes an incompatibility. While Windows is not immune from these woes, it certainly does not have such issues to the level that Linux does.
To think that in its current state Linux is ready to be a business and consumer grade OS is optimistic at best and stupid at worst.

While I know next to nothing about linux, I'd like to see you break down THIS post wingsofgod.

Just so you know, you're attacking a very upstanding and helpful member of this forum... while you might not classify it as 'attacking', your posts have a very offensive/defensive tone... not very nice :)

[WingsofGOD]

Break down what? I allready did break down anything that had any baring on the post. The poster knows nothing about Linux, this fact is very Plain from his posts. I could care less what other OS people use, but if your going to attempt to be a fan boy and bash something you know nothing about, at least read up on it a little....

[futura2001]

What does the window manager have to do with anything? You don't program for a WINDOW MANAGER, again, looks like you also know nothing about the subject.
If only I believed you were kidding...
But then again, perhaps you are just a reflection of the Linux community in some way, shape, or form, because it is a problem I see throughout the community.
Most of the linux developers really don't "program for a WINDOW MANAGER". Which really is a shame, because for linux to ever get accepted as a mainstream alternative OS, there is going to have to be a lot of work.
Why would anyone want to program something for a window manager when most Linux junkies are too busy running everything straight off the console?
Because the junkies consist of about 1% of the total computing population, maybe a little more, maybe a little less. Who makes up the rest? Your grandma, your boss who can't seem to figure out the difference between "reply" and "reply all", your brother who can't set the time on his VCR, and so on. These are the people that an OS needs to be catered for in order to succeed. If it isn't catered to them, they would rather not bother and stick to something easier to use.
So what does a window manager have to do with all this? Well, these people certainly can't be expected to bother with a command line, so they are going to want to point and click their way around an OS. And if they want to point and click their way around, they need a window manager that works all the time, every time. They need every program to interact with the window manager perfectly. This is something that is a long, long, way off for Linux, and will probably not happen until a project like GNOME that focuses on simplicity and usability gets universally adopted.
Linux is not a business class OS, and the people that try and espouse the benefits of linux over anything are only kidding themselves. Sure, your OS is built like a tank, but it is a tank that you have to drive not by a steering wheel, but by typing in geographic coordinates. Do you think the other 99% of the population will stand for that? No, they'd rather have a cheap sedan that, while it has trouble climbing hills and has a leaky fuel line, is easy to use and even comes with a GPS navigation system to make it even easier to get from place to place.
You seem to think you "know so much" about Linux and operating systems in general, but if you really did you would have a lot more respect for Apple and Microsoft for the products they have put together. Linux isn't even in the same ballpark; it isn't anywhere close...

[MRD]

What?!?! This model may work in the happy land of loonix where everyone shares all source code and they all frolick in pastoral fields and bla bla bla, but in the real world where corporations that have a vested interest in actually, um... making money are developing the software, it all falls to hell. You can't release product specifications and allow the competition to clone your product and still expect to make money.

Sure you can. Just because other people understand how stuff interfaces with your product doesn't make it easy to actually make the product itself. M$ has gotten in trouble on more than one occasion for not releasing info necessary for competitors to make good software.

IBM tried this with their personal computers, and guess what? I don't see too many IBM PCs anymore.

And the world is better off for it. Why do you think IBM's beat apples? Apple clearly had a better product in the Mac. PC's won because they were cloned and more affordable. There was competition in this marketplace, so consumers were drawn to it. Prices were far better. In the end, neither Apple nor IBM won the PC wars, but the consumers did. We can order PC's from any number of vendors, and they are all essentially intercompatible, and that's why PC's start at $300 from Dell nowadays instead of the $3000 they started at in the mid 80's.

Fact of the matter is that if someone releases their product specs, someone else is going to come along, produce it for less money, and steal the initial company's profits. This is why we have patents: so somebody else doesn't come along and start making money form my product.

That's the point. We need other vendors in the marketplace for the good of consumers. As it is now, M$ can treat its customers horribly, yet many have no choice but to continue to support them. If there were more competitors that were binary compatible, M$ would be forced to do what was best for consumers. That's the ultimate point of capitalism. Competition means consumers win.

We must not allow patents that help enforce monopolies? Patents by nature enforce monopolies. You can't just say that because something is the most widely successful product on the market, the patent has to be revoked because it enforces a monopoly. Or that because something is the only product of its kind on the market, the patent is null and void because there is no competition.

They already have copyright. That's enough protection. What that means is that you can't copy someone's code/program and distribute it, as they hold the rights to it. This is a good thing to protect intellectual property. What you should not be able to do, and which patents would allow, is patenting of silly concepts like "scroll bars" or "recycle bin". Patents are not needed. Fortunately, the EU agreed, and voted overwhelmingly to ban software patents in Europe.

Quite frankly, Microsoft has been a monopoly since it first routed *nix back to the server market where change is bad and left Apple to the snobs of the computing world

M$ never routed *nix back to the server market. That would imply *nix was on the desktop in any meaningful way, ever. There wasn't even a *nix kernel capable of running PC's when M$ was gaining dominance in the PC market. It was a server/mainframe only OS that ran on proprietary chipsets and cost a fortune. The first reasonably full featured *nix kernel for x86 was BSD, which I believe was released in the mid 90's, long after M$ was dominant on the PC desktop.

And now, ten years after the 1995 of Windows, the world is even more under Microsoft control. Kudos Microsoft. With a shrewd purchase of Seattle Computer Products' Quick and Dirty Operating System in 1980, Microsoft set the stage to dominate the world of operating systems. Can we blame Microsoft for their shrewd, and often predatory business practices?

It's not about blame. It's about acting to preserve competition under the Sherman Antitrust Act. It's about doing what is best for consumers. As Teddy Roosevelt believed, no corporation should ever feel it has more power than the government, over anything, because it doesn't, and the government is essentially the power of the people.

Take a look at the much publicized Internet Explorer fiasco for instance. When IE was released, Netscape was the titan. In fact, Netscape had been a titan since its beta release, a fact attributed to the fact that it was a far superior product to anything else available at the time. Then came Internet Explorer, a product from Microsoft that came bundled with their operating system, and promised greater integration into the operating system itself than any third party product could offer. In this respect, Microsoft was justified to release it with their OS. They developed IE to work seamlessly with Windows and to ultimately help run Windows itself. This is something that Netscape could never do without Windows source code, and that isn't likely to occur.

Exactly the point. M$ used its knowledge of the OS to prevent netscape from competing. This was found to be illegal, and M$ was ordered by the courts to release full info on its API's so that competitors could produce competing software. M$ also won by bundling IE. Many people just used IE cause it was there, and netscape required a download. The same thing is happening now with WMP versus RP and some others. Fortunately, the EU, South Korea, and some other govts. are requiring that M$ unbundle WMP from windows.

Furthermore, Microsoft has often left innovation for someone else to do, and instead has focused on developing products similar to current hot products, and bundling them with their own software suites. Why should I pay for a web browser when I can just get one for free with Windows? Is this any different from other operating systems? No, Apple has Safari, and *nix has... Lynx and about a thousand other browsers that offer varying levels of functionality.

Other than Opera, pretty much all browsers are, and have always been, free. I was browsing the web in college when NCSA mosaic was big, then came netscape, then IE, then mozilla, then firefox, etc. All were 100% free. It's not a matter of consumers having to pay for other browsers.

Microsoft exists to make money.

Yes, but the government does not. The govt. exists to do what is in the best interest of the people. Monopolies are not in the best interest of the people, and hence should be broken up.

By making money, they are inevitably going to cause a loss of profits for somebody else. By making lots of money, they are inevitably going to push smaller competitors out of business. This is how the world of business works, and to deny it is to deny reality itself. But to punish them for being successful is akin to handicapping an opposing football team for being a superior competitor.

All companies compete. However, M$ has used far more predatory and illegal business practices than any other company. Also, to some degree, we do handicap the best sports teams. Do you know what a draft is? It exists to keep major league baseball competitive. Each year, the team that sucked the most gets first pick of the best players. They then must play for that team for a period of 7? years until they become a free agent (unless the team trades them earlier). This ensures that baseball teams remain competitive, as that is what is in the best interest of the sport and the people. In this case, we must maintain competition in the computer industry, as that leads to greater innovation and is in the best interests of the industry and the people of the world.

Oh! The Kernel went from 2.6.12 in June, to 2.6.13 in August, to 2.6.14 in October! 3 updates to the kernel itself in a matter of 5 months.

It doesn't matter though. For example, let's take Mathematica. It's a commercially developed linux application (and one of the few commercially developed linux apps I have at my fingertips atm). The only requirement is that the kernel be >= to a certain version. Beyond that, it doesn't matter. Any distro, any window manager, any kernel version after 2.2 will all work. The comparisons you are making are absurd. It's not far off me complaining that windows differs too much to develop for, as people use different desktop wallpapers, and it would have to be tested with all the possible wallpapers! Some things simply do not matter. Window managers are not OS's. They just control the pretty graphics in the background, the virtual desktops, the borders around windows, etc. They don't run gui software. X11 does that.

Yes there are more versions of linux kernels than windows, but there are different versions of the windows kernel in each OS. There are different builds of Windows 2000 for example. It doesn't really matter which you are using though, as they maintain backwards compatibility.

To think that in its current state Linux is ready to be a business and consumer grade OS is optimistic at best and stupid at worst.

Linux and BSD are already commercial grade OS's. They're present on an enormous number of servers, and those servers are consistently demonstrated to be more stable and secure than their windows counterparts.

Most of the linux developers really don't "program for a WINDOW MANAGER". Which really is a shame, because for linux to ever get accepted as a mainstream alternative OS, there is going to have to be a lot of work.

This just shows a complete lack of understanding of the division of labor between the OS, X11, the desktop manager, and the window manager. Go do some reading before you even try to discuss this stuff.

Why would anyone want to program something for a window manager when most Linux junkies are too busy running everything straight off the console?

Honestly, linux and windows are pretty much the same here. You can run an app by clicking on an icon or you can run it by typing it into a cmd window/xterm. Both OS's offer both options. So I don't see your point at all.

So what does a window manager have to do with all this? Well, these people certainly can't be expected to bother with a command line, so they are going to want to point and click their way around an OS. And if they want to point and click their way around, they need a window manager that works all the time, every time. They need every program to interact with the window manager perfectly.

Linux already has this, and has had it for many years. If an app wants to add a menu entry or a desktop icon, it can do so trivially.

This is something that is a long, long, way off for Linux, and will probably not happen until a project like GNOME that focuses on simplicity and usability gets universally adopted.

Umm no, Linux had this in like 1995.

Linux is not a business class OS, and the people that try and espouse the benefits of linux over anything are only kidding themselves. Sure, your OS is built like a tank, but it is a tank that you have to drive not by a steering wheel, but by typing in geographic coordinates. Do you think the other 99% of the population will stand for that? No, they'd rather have a cheap sedan that, while it has trouble climbing hills and has a leaky fuel line, is easy to use and even comes with a GPS navigation system to make it even easier to get from place to place.

Then why is linux still chipping away at M$'s market share in the server market? *nux already runs most of the web. IIS has a tiny market share, about 1/5 that of Apache. The server world is owned by *nix. Computing clusters are completely dominated by $nix. The only thing linux has made lousy headway in is the desktop, and even that is growing steadily.

You seem to think you "know so much" about Linux and operating systems in general, but if you really did you would have a lot more respect for Apple and Microsoft for the products they have put together. Linux isn't even in the same ballpark; it isn't anywhere close...

You're completely wrong. Pick up a Xandros OCE CD and put it into the drive. The installer is easier than windows. My grandmother can do this without an issue. You get a pretty gui interface, all set up automatically. Installation of programs is EASIER than with windows. You don't even have to go on the web to download stuff. You just open up a gui menu app and choose the app you want, it goes and downloads, installs, and configures it.

Windows really has two advantages. Familiarity and 3rd party support. The first is simply that people are used to it, because its dominant, so they are comfortable with it. The second is that more software and hardware are made for windows than for linux. The reason this happens is two fold. First of all, it's market share. If you want to make a program, would you target the OS on 95% of the computers in the world or the one on 5%? Pretty obvious there. The other is that M$ prevents, illegally btw, companies from producing linux software. There was a company that made a linux antivirus suite (I can't remember the name now). M$ bought the company, and discontinued the linux version. Corel made a linux office suite. M$ bought a share in Corel contingent on them dropping the linux office suite. Dell can't produce a linux desktop, or M$ will increase their pricing on windows. That's illegal btw, but we all know they do it. Same reason Dell can't release AMD pc's, Intel will jack up their chip pricing. This is the kind of thing that must be stopped. Let M$ try to compete by just making a better product, but they must be stopped from destroying the competition through buyouts, threats, and price punishment.

[WingsofGOD]

Booyah comes to mind...

[-maddog-]

BTW Dell is making pc's with FF as default browser. Also I don't get the browser wars neither company is making money off it. :shrug: .

[Oroka Sempai]

Okay, I am in no way a Linux expert. I install it to play with it about once a year, and delete it about a week later.

My latest install was Mandriva, the latest version. Looks pretty, kinda bloated like XP, not anything spectactular. None of my software works on it, and few even have linux versions. The single thing that made me format was its lack of wireless networking support. To make it work, I would have had to install a program to use a windows driver on Linux.

It M$ a monopoly. Yes, but its days are numbered. There are hints of a Google web browser around, Google just got a share in AOL, beating out M$, they have a partner with Sun Micro Systems... they are attacking M$ on many fronts. Linux will have its day, maybe 15 years from now, but as a vastly diffrent beast. Someone will have to push a comercial version before it becomes stable and popular enough for software developers to work on it.

If I cant play my fav games on it, then I aint buyin it, even if it is free.

[Beginner]

microsoft makes a good product, spends millions of dollars to make believe its the best and only solution.

sun complains and tries to sue but believe me, if sun was in the same position as microsoft then they wouldn't be complaining.

i like windows cause its super easy to use, doesn't require command prompts or text.

i can watch movies/make copies/play games/serve the web and so much more with the same operating software.

i am by no means an ms fanboy, but windows works.

if they are a monopoly is because they've spanked other os developers through ease of use, simplicity and the most powerful reason - marketing.

[MRD]

My latest install was Mandriva, the latest version. Looks pretty, kinda bloated like XP, not anything spectactular.

I'm not a big mandriva fan, mostly for the reasons you mention. It's very bloated and really not any faster than windows. Also, it's based on rpms, which makes it very hard to install new software.

None of my software works on it, and few even have linux versions.

Well, the reciprocal is equally true. If you are a linux user, windows won't run your software, and most linux software does not have a windows version either. Stuff like firefox, openoffice, and gimp exist for both, but many are linux only.

This isn't because windows is better, it's just that you would have to get more used to equivalent programs in linux that do basically the same thing as their windows counterparts. In general, they are also free, have no activation/registration, no restrictions on use, etc., which is quite nice.

Some common programs:

browser: IMO, firefox is the best on both platforms, so linux/windows are dead even here, since it's the same program in each case.
word processor: openoffice in linux, openoffice/word in windows. Pretty similar in terms of functionality, features, ease of use, etc. Tie here imo.
spreadsheet: openoffice in linux, openoffice/excel in windows. Similar for basic functionality, but the VBA macro ability in excel is very nice and not matched by openoffice yet.
graphics: gimp in linux, gimp/photoshop in windows. Similar functionality, although they work quite differently. I've yet to find anything I needed that gimp did not do.
email: evolution in linux (or lots of others), outlook in windows (or lots of others). Pretty much all these programs do the same basic thing and have similar functionality. I prefer evolution to outlook, but it's mostly feel and not features.
desktop publishing: Pagemaker/Quark in Windows, Scribus in linux. Scribus is pretty much equivalent to M$ publisher in power, well behind pagemaker based on my experience. It's getting better though.

These are just a few examples. In general, while your windows program may not have a linux version, there's an excellent chance there is a linux program that is free and does everything you need. It just necessitates you being open minded enough to try a new app. The main exception here is gaming. Linux is just as good at gaming as Windows in theory, but in practice, far more games are produced for windows, and games are not interchangeable. One word processor or the next, who cares really? But each game is unique.

The single thing that made me format was its lack of wireless networking support. To make it work, I would have had to install a program to use a windows driver on Linux.

Linux has support for a number of chipsets, but some lack support still. ndiswrapper is not that bad really, I've used and it was easy enough, but ideally, choose hardware that is more compatible. When I buy hardware, I make sure it will work in linux.

Someone will have to push a comercial version before it becomes stable and popular enough for software developers to work on it.

There are already many commercial versions available. Xandros, Linspire, Red Hat, and Suse are all commercial. Xandros is amazingly easy to use. Linux is already more stable than windows, so that's not an issue. It's also more secure and virtually devoid of spyware and viruses. I have NEVER once gotten either on my linux installs (except the tracking cookies). I had to reformat my windows install 2x this week because of spyware/viruses.

If I cant play my fav games on it, then I aint buyin it, even if it is free.

This is why I dual boot. I keep Win 2K for the games I can't play with cedega. It's a pain. This is imo the main weakness of linux and why so many linux users like me keep a small windows partition.

i like windows cause its super easy to use, doesn't require command prompts or text.

Linux doesn't require use of the CLI either. However, I don't really understand this. I have always found it easier to use a CLI than a gui interface for most things. Even in windows, I open up a cmd window to do file management. I just find it easier, dunno why, maybe because I grew up using DOS so it's more natural.

i can watch movies/make copies/play games/serve the web and so much more with the same operating software.

This is why I stopped buying M$ products. All the indications are that as time passes, maybe in Vista, maybe later, you won't be able to copy media, watch movies, etc. because of the extensive DRM that M$ is adding to its OS's. This lack of freedom was the dealbreaker for me. I used to use both linux and windows almost equally, liking both for various things. The NGSCP (Next Generation Secure Computing Platform) has forced me to choose to use only linux going forward.

i am by no means an ms fanboy, but windows works.

But will it always? Or will it eventually become so crippled with DRM that you can't do half of what you want?

if they are a monopoly is because they've spanked other os developers through ease of use, simplicity and the most powerful reason - marketing.

IMO, it's mostly about marketing and shrewd business practices and less through ease of use, simplicity, or quality. Mac has always been a better product in terms of ease of use, although the gap has been closing somewhat. However, windows is dominant, because it happened to be the OS for the cheaper/dominant hardware architecture and because of the way M$ bullied other companies.

[futura2001]

First off, server grade and business grade are two completely different measurements. And in the latter, Linux is far behind Windows. Microsoft didn't exactly race to the finish line as well, NT was the first start and it wasn't until Windows 2000 that Microsoft delivered a true business class operating system.
To further explain my issues with window managers, yes you are right that the window manager performs very trivial tasks and should not be an issue. However, there are many problems that occur due to improper window manager handling that do not happen on Windows or OS-X in similar situations.
Examples are:
Root window conflicts
Banner/decorations showing up or not showing up
hotkey conflicts
resizing/minimizing issues
alphablending issues
Not to mention numerous problems with icons
While many of these errors are relatively easily fixed, they are not the sort of thing that most computer users are going to be able to fix. And that is precisely who needs to be targeted if Linux is ever going to be successful on the desktop.

And the world is better off for it. Why do you think IBM's beat apples? Apple clearly had a better product in the Mac. PC's won because they were cloned and more affordable. There was competition in this marketplace, so consumers were drawn to it. Prices were far better. In the end, neither Apple nor IBM won the PC wars, but the consumers did. We can order PC's from any number of vendors, and they are all essentially intercompatible, and that's why PC's start at $300 from Dell nowadays instead of the $3000 they started at in the mid 80's.
You should look into the cost of producing hardware in the mid 80s, and and the cost of producing it now. Therein lie most of the story of why PCs are vastly less expensive. Secondly, saying that consumers won is an irrelevent point. It was IBM's choice to allow their PCs to be cloned, and for that choice they paid the price of ultimately getting pushed out of the market. Similarly, it is Microsoft's choice to produce a closed source OS and not allow it to be cloned and thereby ensure their sole ownership of the product they produce.

That's the point. We need other vendors in the marketplace for the good of consumers. As it is now, M$ can treat its customers horribly, yet many have no choice but to continue to support them. If there were more competitors that were binary compatible, M$ would be forced to do what was best for consumers. That's the ultimate point of capitalism. Competition means consumers win.
No. That is not the ultimate point of capitalism. Capitalism is a system where capital is built through private production and traded on a free market economy for profit. Competition is a side effect of the free market economy. Furthermore, copyrights and patents exist to regulate fair production and encourage innovation.

They already have copyright. That's enough protection. What that means is that you can't copy someone's code/program and distribute it, as they hold the rights to it. This is a good thing to protect intellectual property. What you should not be able to do, and which patents would allow, is patenting of silly concepts like "scroll bars" or "recycle bin". Patents are not needed. Fortunately, the EU agreed, and voted overwhelmingly to ban software patents in Europe.
You really, really need to read up on the definition of what a copyright and what a patent is. As for the patenting of scroll bars and recycle bins, this is more an issue of overwhelmed patent bureaus and the fact that software is still a relatively new variable thrown into the equation.


M$ never routed *nix back to the server market. That would imply *nix was on the desktop in any meaningful way, ever. There wasn't even a *nix kernel capable of running PC's when M$ was gaining dominance in the PC market. It was a server/mainframe only OS that ran on proprietary chipsets and cost a fortune. The first reasonably full featured *nix kernel for x86 was BSD, which I believe was released in the mid 90's, long after M$ was dominant on the PC desktop.
Before Microsoft there was Unix and its variants, and there was Apple.

Yes, but the government does not. The govt. exists to do what is in the best interest of the people. Monopolies are not in the best interest of the people, and hence should be broken up.
Yes, the government does have to make money. How do you think laws are enforced, bills passed, wars fought, and civil servants paid? Governments don't just print off more money for their own use because this results in currency devaluation, they make their money mostly off taxation. Monopolies are not inherently bad, they only become a problem when they abuse their power. In fact, some monopolies are in the best interest of the people, gas and electric companies are government regulated monopolies that generally operate in the best interest of the people.

All companies compete. However, M$ has used far more predatory and illegal business practices than any other company.
Do a bit of digging on virtually any major company and you will be shocked. They didn't get where they are today by always staying on the right side of legality. Apple is a good place to start, they have done things that would make Thomas Penfield Jackson scream. Microsoft is not out of the norm for any other company its size. The really sad thing is that some of the most dastardly things businesses do are just slightly within the bounds of legality.

The other is that M$ prevents, illegally btw, companies from producing linux software. There was a company that made a linux antivirus suite (I can't remember the name now). M$ bought the company, and discontinued the linux version. Corel made a linux office suite. M$ bought a share in Corel contingent on them dropping the linux office suite. Dell can't produce a linux desktop, or M$ will increase their pricing on windows. That's illegal btw, but we all know they do it. Same reason Dell can't release AMD pc's, Intel will jack up their chip pricing. This is the kind of thing that must be stopped. Let M$ try to compete by just making a better product, but they must be stopped from destroying the competition through buyouts, threats, and price punishment.
Your first two examples are not illegal. You need to read up on takeovers; there is nothing illegal about completely purchasing or purchasing a share of a competitor. If a company so desires, they could offer to buy the publicly traded stock of a company for a greater value than it is worth for the sole purpose of amassing a controlling share to take over the board of directors, and thus control the management. This is not illegal.
Furthermore, saying that Dell can't release linux PCs because Microsoft will raise prices on Windows is a false point because Dell does provide linux systems (www.dell.com/linux).

Don't get me wrong, I do not hate linux. But in terms of where Microsoft is making their money, why they are making their money, and why they will continue to make their money, Microsoft has a superior operating system.

[MRD]

First off, server grade and business grade are two completely different measurements.

Please define exactly what you mean by "business grade" so that we can discuss it further. Apparently I do not understand what you're getting at.

To further explain my issues with window managers, yes you are right that the window manager performs very trivial tasks and should not be an issue. However, there are many problems that occur due to improper window manager handling that do not happen on Windows or OS-X in similar situations.
Examples are:
Root window conflicts
Banner/decorations showing up or not showing up
hotkey conflicts
resizing/minimizing issues
alphablending issues
Not to mention numerous problems with icons
While many of these errors are relatively easily fixed, they are not the sort of thing that most computer users are going to be able to fix. And that is precisely who needs to be targeted if Linux is ever going to be successful on the desktop.

First of all, I use linux 24/7 on 10 different computers. I have used it in the workplace as well. I have never seen ANY of these issues you talk about from window managers. The existence of different window managers in linux is a great strength of the OS. In Windows, it's one size fits all. If you have a system that can't handle all the eye candy without losing speed, too bad. If you prefer a different look, too bad. With linux, you get a lot more freedom, choice, and power, without any real drawbacks. You are attempting to turn what is a huge advantage into a disadvantage with unsubstantiated scare tactics.

You should look into the cost of producing hardware in the mid 80s, and and the cost of producing it now. Therein lie most of the story of why PCs are vastly less expensive. Secondly, saying that consumers won is an irrelevent point. It was IBM's choice to allow their PCs to be cloned, and for that choice they paid the price of ultimately getting pushed out of the market. Similarly, it is Microsoft's choice to produce a closed source OS and not allow it to be cloned and thereby ensure their sole ownership of the product they produce.

Well, certainly there are innate changes in the price of hardware, and hardware has gotten cheaper partly because of the cost of production. However, the reason computers are as cheap as they are is competition. Without it, they would be far more expensive, as a company with a monoplistic hold on computer hardware would have little reason to lower prices. Intel's profit margins dropped substantially when AMD started making a truly competitive chip. The same happened with computers.

As for cloning M$ windows, it's already been done. There is an open source clone of Windows called ReactOS. It's still VERY beta atm and not that stable. It's really not a viable alternative to windows yet, but it shows a great deal of promise. It is binary and driver compatible with windows, meaning it will run any windows software (in theory, not in practice... yet) and drivers written for windows will work with it. Personally, I'm very hopeful.

No. That is not the ultimate point of capitalism. Capitalism is a system where capital is built through private production and traded on a free market economy for profit. Competition is a side effect of the free market economy.

Why capitalism? Why not communism? I'm a capitalist, and the arguments I use to support capitalism boil down to one thing. It is what is best for the people as a whole. Why is capitalism best for the people? Because competition encourages innovation and controls prices. Competition is not just a side effect of a free market economy, it is an integral part of it. Competition is WHY capitalism is good.

Furthermore, copyrights and patents exist to regulate fair production and encourage innovation.

Did you know that the US is among a very small minority of countriesin the world to support software patents? The EU recently voted 648 to 14 against software patents, stating that they stifled competition and innovation and were not in the best interests of the computing industry or the citizens of the EU. Only the US is so completely sold out to megacorporations like M$ to support software patents on ridiculous and trivial things.

You really, really need to read up on the definition of what a copyright and what a patent is. As for the patenting of scroll bars and recycle bins, this is more an issue of overwhelmed patent bureaus and the fact that software is still a relatively new variable thrown into the equation.

Actually, I know quite a bit about it, having been very active in the recent fight against software patents. I'm involved with several organizations dedicated to fighting software patents. They are utterly ridiculous.

Here is just a sampling of how ridiculous software patents are.
http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/samples/index.en.html
This is not the exception but the rule. Copyright already provides more than sufficient protection for intellectual property. Patents are ridiculous in software. How ironic it is that M$ would now support software patents, the company that stole every idea that anyone ever came up with and made it their own, forcing the original innovators out of business.

Before Microsoft there was Unix and its variants, and there was Apple.

Not for desktop pc's there wasn't. It only ran on mainframes and other very expensive architectures (like Sun). No regular person could afford a *nix based computer for his home, and there was no software targeted to that market at all. All of the software was proprietary stuff that ran in large corporations for dedicated purposes, like the systems that do billing for the phone company, etc.

Yes, the government does have to make money.

I never said the govt. doesn't have to make money. Of course it needs income. That's not the point. The point is that while companies exist with the primary purpose of making money, the govt. does not. The govt. exists to serve the people, and money is just a means to an end.

Monopolies are not inherently bad, they only become a problem when they abuse their power. In fact, some monopolies are in the best interest of the people, gas and electric companies are government regulated monopolies that generally operate in the best interest of the people.

Monopolies are inherently bad. Any unregulated monopoly will abuse its position. As you've said before, the point of a company is to make money. I agree. Thus, it is consistent with the company's mission to rip off customers if it can get away with it. That's exactly what they do. In some cases, regulated monopolies do a good job, but that's due to external legal constraints imposed by the govt, not because monopolies are good. If they were so good, or even neutral, they wouldn't need special regulation to prevent abuses.

Do a bit of digging on virtually any major company and you will be shocked. They didn't get where they are today by always staying on the right side of legality. Apple is a good place to start, they have done things that would make Thomas Penfield Jackson scream. Microsoft is not out of the norm for any other company its size. The really sad thing is that some of the most dastardly things businesses do are just slightly within the bounds of legality.

I agree on the last point, about how much of what they do is legal, despite it being evil. However, M$ has taken predatory business practices to a new level. They are not just like their peers, they are far beyond any other company out there. They have enormous power and they use it. In doing so, they stifle innovation and prevent new and beneficial ideas and technologies from reaching the consumer. That is why we must stop them by invoking the Sherman anti-trust act.

Your first two examples are not illegal. You need to read up on takeovers; there is nothing illegal about completely purchasing or purchasing a share of a competitor. If a company so desires, they could offer to buy the publicly traded stock of a company for a greater value than it is worth for the sole purpose of amassing a controlling share to take over the board of directors, and thus control the management. This is not illegal.

I agree completely, you missed my point. What I was showing is that M$ uses predatory business practices to destroy the competition rather than producing a superior product. They win through business and legal means, not by producing the best product.

Furthermore, saying that Dell can't release linux PCs because Microsoft will raise prices on Windows is a false point because Dell does provide linux systems.

I should have been more specific. Dell does produce enterprise linux systems, but not consumer linux pc's. Call them up and ask them to sell you a linux pc. They can't do it, because it violates the terms of the contract with M$. Even further, they can't sell you a PC without an OS. They have a deal with M$ that every PC they sell must include an OS. This is another attempt by M$ to prevent people from running a PC without giving M$ a piece of the pie. This is wrong though. Consumers deserve a choice. They should be able to buy a PC with linux, windows, nothing, dos, cp/m, or whatever. We deserve freedom to choose our OS.

Don't get me wrong, I do not hate linux. But in terms of where Microsoft is making their money, why they are making their money, and why they will continue to make their money, Microsoft has a superior operating system.

I disagree completely. M$'s OS is not superior. They win by buying out the competition or forcing it out of business, by stealing ideas and giving them away as part of an OS, just to drive other companies out of business, and to scare potential competitors from entering the field. They're a coercive monopoly that prevents anyone else from entering the playing field with an enormous amount of money, a huge team of lawyers, and a complete lack of scruples.

As for the superior OS, don't try to tell me about superior OS... I have had to reformat and reinstall my entire windows partition twice this week due to spyware/viruses that I couldn't get rid of. I do run antivirus software, including the M$ windows defender, and anti spyware software (adaware and spybot). All of this combined can't keep my system safe. Yet in 8 years of linux use, I have not once had a single case of malware on my linux install.

Superior OS my ass.

[Goateh]

Dear god... thats one hell of a reply O-o

[hafa]

Dear god... thats one hell of a reply O-o

I agree, kudos to MRD for his thoroughly civilized and well-thought out responses throughout this thread.

That said, I just wanted to mention one word:

Adobe

As soon as Adobe creates Linux versions of their products, I'll be on board. Folks in the graphics/print industry depend on Illustrator, Photoshop and In Design to get the work done. While Gimp is available, it is a pale shadow of Photoshop and there is nothing to compare to Illustrator or In Design. Likewise, no Linux products are available which offer the depth and power of Dreamweaver or Flash for the web developer community.

[Goateh]

I may not be a fan of the web/graphics design part of Adboe, but I whole heartedly agree... I am a rather large fan of the premiere/video packages.
I have yet to see anything linux based to match Premiere/After Effects (Cinerella doesn't seem that great :p)

[MRD]

I just got a big survey from Adobe in my email asking me about Adobe and linux. I think they're considering it. I agree that it would really help linux out a lot to have Adobe products on the platform. Pagemaker more than anything I think, as Scribus is really not even close to it in power and ease of use. I still can't figure out how to use Scribus, although I've been told it's fairly powerful now.

Personally, I disagree with your assessment of gimp vs photoshop, I think they're pretty comparable, although quite different in how they work. I suppose it's a matter of personal preference though.

[hafa]

...Personally, I disagree with your assessment of gimp vs photoshop, I think they're pretty comparable, although quite different in how they work. I suppose it's a matter of personal preference though.

I tried the gimp a couple of years back, so my experience may be horribly dated, but at that time, gimp lacked:

Sophisticated layer masking
Support of LAB channels
Channel masking
Layer-based text editing and effects
Adjustable cloning tools
Unsharp layer masking
Navigation/thumbnail support
Vector Path support
Gradient and pattern layer overlay

There were several other abilities which made it unusable at the professional level; perhaps these issues have been subsequently addressed.

[MRD]

It may be that they have been, and it may be that my own needs are too simplistic to notice the difference. I would say that certainly for the vast majority of people, gimp is more than sufficient. However, maybe there are some features that professionals would really miss.

I know it has come a long way in the last couple years. I know a number of photo professionals use this software instead of photoshop (and vice versa). I'm not sure what the breakdown is, although I imagine Photoshop has the greater share of the market. You should give it a try... I'd be interested to hear how it now compares to Photoshop from the point of view of someone more sophisticated in image manipulation software than myself. I don't even understand what most of the things you listed mean. =p

[futura2001]

Please define exactly what you mean by "business grade" so that we can discuss it further. Apparently I do not understand what you're getting at.
By business grade, I mean an operating system that is both functional, stable, intuitive, and compatible enough for every day business use. Supported, and tested so that updates do not regularly increase instability and intercompatibility issues. Compatible with hardware to a degree that hardware installation does not leave one wondering if new hardware will work. Supported, so that if one attaches a 3D scanner or high end midi keyboard to their computer, it will work out of the box because it has already been configured to run on that OS. Linux is starting to get support, nVidia, 3d Labs, and ATi offer linux drivers now, but linux is still a far cry from where Windows is at, which does have a lot to do with the popularity of the operating system and Microsoft having worked with developers to optimize software for their operating system.

First of all, I use linux 24/7 on 10 different computers. I have used it in the workplace as well. I have never seen ANY of these issues you talk about from window managers. The existence of different window managers in linux is a great strength of the OS. In Windows, it's one size fits all. If you have a system that can't handle all the eye candy without losing speed, too bad. If you prefer a different look, too bad. With linux, you get a lot more freedom, choice, and power, without any real drawbacks. You are attempting to turn what is a huge advantage into a disadvantage with unsubstantiated scare tactics.
First off, there are versions of Windows for virtually all the systems that linux scales to, from embedded platforms all the way up to supercomputer clusters. Second, perhaps my experiences with linux are out of the norm and due to user error, but then again I consider having to reinstall windows twice a week due to malware to fall in the same category. If you say that these are issues rarely encountered, I am inclined to believe you because you appear to know more about linux than I do. However, your issues with Windows appear to stem from a lack of knowledge thereof, and by stepping back and looking at this debate from a different perspective, a rational explanation may be that both our issues stem from personal bias from our own experiences and do not apply to this debate.

Well, certainly there are innate changes in the price of hardware, and hardware has gotten cheaper partly because of the cost of production. However, the reason computers are as cheap as they are is competition. Without it, they would be far more expensive, as a company with a monoplistic hold on computer hardware would have little reason to lower prices. Intel's profit margins dropped substantially when AMD started making a truly competitive chip. The same happened with computers.
And you know what? AMD did not need any help to get there, they made it there on their own despite the arguably predatory practices of Intel. AMD started the "race" at around the same time as Intel, and thus was able to keep some pace with Intel. In the desktop operating systems "race", Apple and ultimately Unix to a lesser degree started before Microsoft, Microsoft pulled ahead, and linux didn't even start competing for several more years. Mind you, this is a very simplified explanation because I don't see a need to get enamored in the legal quagmires pertinent to both examples; this is just an explanation of what happened.

Why capitalism? Why not communism? I'm a capitalist, and the arguments I use to support capitalism boil down to one thing. It is what is best for the people as a whole. Why is capitalism best for the people? Because competition encourages innovation and controls prices. Competition is not just a side effect of a free market economy, it is an integral part of it. Competition is WHY capitalism is good.
No, competition stems from profit (and an abundance thereof) which is inherent to capitalism. There are many cases in a capitalist economic system where one can have profit without competition because the profit margin is low enough that there is no gain in competing for the crumbs. Such can be defined as a niche market, and it may be controlled by a monopoly or an oligopoly.

As for the issue with software patents, I agree that the system is flawed. There is a direct correlation between the rampant rise in software patents to the fall in research and development in the software industry. This most likely stems from the fact that even today we do not have a legal definition of what exactly a software patent entails. However, I believe the system needs reform before it needs to be eliminated.

Monopolies are inherently bad. Any unregulated monopoly will abuse its position. As you've said before, the point of a company is to make money. I agree. Thus, it is consistent with the company's mission to rip off customers if it can get away with it. That's exactly what they do. In some cases, regulated monopolies do a good job, but that's due to external legal constraints imposed by the govt, not because monopolies are good. If they were so good, or even neutral, they wouldn't need special regulation to prevent abuses.
If monopolies and oligopolies are by nature bad, then the capitalist system is inherently flawed. Monopolies and oligopolies will arise in a capitalist system by nature. Too much governmental regulation, and the whole "free market economy" becomes a joke. Should we punish businesses for being successful?

I agree on the last point, about how much of what they do is legal, despite it being evil. However, M$ has taken predatory business practices to a new level. They are not just like their peers, they are far beyond any other company out there. They have enormous power and they use it. In doing so, they stifle innovation and prevent new and beneficial ideas and technologies from reaching the consumer. That is why we must stop them by invoking the Sherman anti-trust act.
Yes, but you see, if what Microsoft does is legal and they are not found to be using their monopolistic power in ways that demand legal action, the government cannot legally do anything.

I agree completely, you missed my point. What I was showing is that M$ uses predatory business practices to destroy the competition rather than producing a superior product. They win through business and legal means, not by producing the best product.
What, like buying out smaller companies that develop superior products so that they can market them as their own, poaching talent from other companies, using a veritable army of top notch lawyers to get their way and the like? Tell me, what large corporation doesn't partake in such practices? Even Google, currently called the "good guy" and "do-gooder" does this. And to expect a business to do otherwise is ludicrous; you might as well expect a hawk to not eat mice.

I should have been more specific. Dell does produce enterprise linux systems, but not consumer linux pc's. Call them up and ask them to sell you a linux pc. They can't do it, because it violates the terms of the contract with M$. Even further, they can't sell you a PC without an OS. They have a deal with M$ that every PC they sell must include an OS. This is another attempt by M$ to prevent people from running a PC without giving M$ a piece of the pie. This is wrong though. Consumers deserve a choice. They should be able to buy a PC with linux, windows, nothing, dos, cp/m, or whatever. We deserve freedom to choose our OS.
Yes, they do sell computers without an OS installed. They come with a FreeDOS disk, but there is nothing on the hard drive. Furthermore, if Dell is under so much pressure from Microsoft pushing its weight around and telling Dell that linux is a no go, why did Dell invest $100 million in Red Hat? This doesn't seem like something that a business being coerced by Microsoft would be doing. Unless of course it was a takeover ploy to perfectly legally gain control of the Red Hat board and force them to stop making their OS, but since Dell ships servers running Red Hat, I seriously doubt that.

...by stealing ideas and giving them away as part of an OS...
Ideas are generally not copyrightable, as copyrights protect mostly finished works. Most of the issues with software patents stem from the fact that ideas can be patented. So are you saying that software patents need to be changed so that businesses and individuals cannot patent ideas, and thus similar products can show up on the market if the implementation is sufficiently different, but when Microsoft does this it is suddenly bad? Microsoft is not primarily an innovator, they take something that is already on the market and make their own version that is good enough to make money. It may not be a superior product, it may not be particularly good, but the masses don't care and would rather stick with a recognizable name. Take tabbed browsing in IE7 for example, tabbed browsing already existed long before Microsoft got around to it, but it offers easier web browsing and so Microsoft decided to implement it as well.

As for the superior OS, don't try to tell me about superior OS... I have had to reformat and reinstall my entire windows partition twice this week due to spyware/viruses that I couldn't get rid of. I do run antivirus software, including the M$ windows defender, and anti spyware software (adaware and spybot). All of this combined can't keep my system safe. Yet in 8 years of linux use, I have not once had a single case of malware on my linux install.
Without even asking what can of worms you got into that required you to reinstall twice in one week, it is ultimately the user that keeps a system safe, not the software. You want to know why you have never had a single case of malware on linux? Because the miscreants spending their days dreaming up new and more infective malware couldn't care less about linux. Why bother kicking the little penguin around who doesn't even have 10% of the market, letalone 5%. Besides, those people running linux actually know what they're doing, unlike majority of people that run Windows who can't even be bothered to run anything but an admin account and are too lazy to even password it!
Security by obscurity is not security at all.
Now imagine a bizzaro universe where Linux held 92% of the desktop OS marketshare and Windows was the underdog coming in at a lean 3.2% market share: who would those same malware writers be targeting? Oh, I think they would be targeting Linux. I bet we would see more process hiding on linux, alterations the sys_call table, heap and stack overflows, process forking, and so on. Furthermore, I must stress that one of things I really do admire about linux and the community that maintains it is the speed at which things are fixed. However, in the event that linux was under the magnifying glass to the degree that Windows is, I am not sure that the community would be able to keep up. While I do not mean to say that Microsoft has done a particularly good job maintaining its OS in the face of multiple new and unique exploits being found every week (heh, there are still security risks from two years ago that haven't been fixed, which also helps to explain why malware has gotten so prevalent) that result in varying levels of security compromise, I do not think that linux community would do much better under similar circumstances.

[MRD]

By business grade, I mean an operating system that is both functional, stable, intuitive, and compatible enough for every day business use. Supported, and tested so that updates do not regularly increase instability and intercompatibility issues. Compatible with hardware to a degree that hardware installation does not leave one wondering if new hardware will work. Supported, so that if one attaches a 3D scanner or high end midi keyboard to their computer, it will work out of the box because it has already been configured to run on that OS. Linux is starting to get support, nVidia, 3d Labs, and ATi offer linux drivers now, but linux is still a far cry from where Windows is at, which does have a lot to do with the popularity of the operating system and Microsoft having worked with developers to optimize software for their operating system.

Linux has all of your prerequisites except 1. It does not have the same level of hardware compatibility as windows, but that's not an OS defect, that's a function of what 3rd party hardware developers produce. There is plenty of compatible software for linux, it's just different than what you are used to for windows. It's very high quality. Just because, say, excel doesn't run on it doesn't matter any more than the fact that gnumeric doesn't run in windows. Also, by your definition, Mac doesn't fit the bill as a business class OS either, as most software is not available for Macs and most hardware won't work with them.

First off, there are versions of Windows for virtually all the systems that linux scales to, from embedded platforms all the way up to supercomputer clusters. Second, perhaps my experiences with linux are out of the norm and due to user error, but then again I consider having to reinstall windows twice a week due to malware to fall in the same category. If you say that these are issues rarely encountered, I am inclined to believe you because you appear to know more about linux than I do. However, your issues with Windows appear to stem from a lack of knowledge thereof, and by stepping back and looking at this debate from a different perspective, a rational explanation may be that both our issues stem from personal bias from our own experiences and do not apply to this debate.

Well, I don't install windows 2x every week, this was an unusually bad one. =p I download all my installers to a file server so that I don't have to redownload every time I install stuff. After I reformatted windows due to a trojan downloader virus I could not get rid of (I tried norton av, macafee, spybot, hijackthis, clamav, pandascan, and some other random ****, nothing worked), I reinstalled, and it somehow got back. So I blew out my download directory on the fileserver, re-downloaded everything, and so far so good. The thing though is that malware is just a complete non issue in linux. I mean, it just doesn't happen. Ever. Never once have I had anything more malicious in linux than a tracking cookie.

Also, M$ JUST released the cluster version of windows a couple months ago, til then there was nothing. Also, I don't think there are versions of windows available for sun sparc, alphas, ibm as400 mainframes, etc. I am not 100% sure, so if I'm wrong, give me a link.

And you know what? AMD did not need any help to get there, they made it there on their own despite the arguably predatory practices of Intel. AMD started the "race" at around the same time as Intel, and thus was able to keep some pace with Intel. In the desktop operating systems "race", Apple and ultimately Unix to a lesser degree started before Microsoft, Microsoft pulled ahead, and linux didn't even start competing for several more years. Mind you, this is a very simplified explanation because I don't see a need to get enamored in the legal quagmires pertinent to both examples; this is just an explanation of what happened.

You keep saying that, but it's not true. There simply was no form of unix for any desktop architecture until long after M$ was completely dominant on the desktop. There was Mac OS, but that didn't run on x86, and was not unix based back then. Unix simply didn't enter the desktop realm until much later.

No, competition stems from profit (and an abundance thereof) which is inherent to capitalism. There are many cases in a capitalist economic system where one can have profit without competition because the profit margin is low enough that there is no gain in competing for the crumbs. Such can be defined as a niche market, and it may be controlled by a monopoly or an oligopoly.

Not the point. Competition is WHY capitalism is good. It's why people generally benefit from capitalism as a society. Also, competition is still an inherent part of capitalism, even if you can find a few places where it does not exist.

As for the issue with software patents, I agree that the system is flawed. There is a direct correlation between the rampant rise in software patents to the fall in research and development in the software industry. This most likely stems from the fact that even today we do not have a legal definition of what exactly a software patent entails. However, I believe the system needs reform before it needs to be eliminated.

We never had software patents for the first 25+ yrs of computing, and it didn't cause any problems. Copyright was more than enough protection for ideas. Most countries still don't have software patents. They're a very new entity, having come about in the last couple years in the US. It's not like it's some long standing part of our system.

If monopolies and oligopolies are by nature bad, then the capitalist system is inherently flawed. Monopolies and oligopolies will arise in a capitalist system by nature. Too much governmental regulation, and the whole "free market economy" becomes a joke. Should we punish businesses for being successful?

Actually, the possibility of creating coercive monopolies is considered by many (including me) to be the main flaw of capitalism. We don't punish them for being successful per se, but we do take action when their market dominance threatens the consumer. That is what anti-trust is all about. That is what broke up the phone company, standard oil, and a number of other megacorps.

Yes, but you see, if what Microsoft does is legal and they are not found to be using their monopolistic power in ways that demand legal action, the government cannot legally do anything.

Sure it can. We can pass new laws preventing certain types of predatory business practices that create monopolies and remove competition from the marketplace. All companies should be aware that the good of the people is more important than their profits, and that if necessary, the government will act to reintroduce competition into a monopolized market sector.

What, like buying out smaller companies that develop superior products so that they can market them as their own, poaching talent from other companies, using a veritable army of top notch lawyers to get their way and the like? Tell me, what large corporation doesn't partake in such practices? Even Google, currently called the "good guy" and "do-gooder" does this. And to expect a business to do otherwise is ludicrous; you might as well expect a hawk to not eat mice.

No other company has ever engaged in predatory business practices on the scale of M$. No other company is responsible for putting so many competitors out of business and preventing so many good ideas from taking hold.

Yes, they do sell computers without an OS installed. They come with a FreeDOS disk, but there is nothing on the hard drive. Furthermore, if Dell is under so much pressure from Microsoft pushing its weight around and telling Dell that linux is a no go, why did Dell invest $100 million in Red Hat? This doesn't seem like something that a business being coerced by Microsoft would be doing. Unless of course it was a takeover ploy to perfectly legally gain control of the Red Hat board and force them to stop making their OS, but since Dell ships servers running Red Hat, I seriously doubt that.

Actually, you just proved my point. Why not just ship a PC without an OS? Why include FreeDOS? Because M$ makes them do it. They found a loophole. I expect M$ will take action to plug it up soonish. Also, the consumer can't get the freedos thing, that's enterprise only also. Dell even made it clear that this was not intended for linux servers, but for companies that already have valid M$ licenses.

Ideas are generally not copyrightable, as copyrights protect mostly finished works. Most of the issues with software patents stem from the fact that ideas can be patented. So are you saying that software patents need to be changed so that businesses and individuals cannot patent ideas, and thus similar products can show up on the market if the implementation is sufficiently different, but when Microsoft does this it is suddenly bad? Microsoft is not primarily an innovator, they take something that is already on the market and make their own version that is good enough to make money. It may not be a superior product, it may not be particularly good, but the masses don't care and would rather stick with a recognizable name. Take tabbed browsing in IE7 for example, tabbed browsing already existed long before Microsoft got around to it, but it offers easier web browsing and so Microsoft decided to implement it as well.

When other companies do it, it introduces a competitive product into the market and improves the life of consumers. When M$ does it, it's to push a company out of the market and create a monopoly, so it's bad. The whole idea is that the laws need to foster the creation of a truly competitive marketplace. All forms of coercion should be removed. Deals that prevent a company from selling a competitor's products should be illegal (actually, I think they are, as AMD is now suing Intel for having done just that with Dell and other companies).

Without even asking what can of worms you got into that required you to reinstall twice in one week, it is ultimately the user that keeps a system safe, not the software. You want to know why you have never had a single case of malware on linux? Because the miscreants spending their days dreaming up new and more infective malware couldn't care less about linux. Why bother kicking the little penguin around who doesn't even have 10% of the market, letalone 5%. Besides, those people running linux actually know what they're doing, unlike majority of people that run Windows who can't even be bothered to run anything but an admin account and are too lazy to even password it!
Security by obscurity is not security at all.

But the point is that it simply doesn't happen in linux. Ever. It doesn't require any effort to prevent malware.

Now imagine a bizzaro universe where Linux held 92% of the desktop OS marketshare and Windows was the underdog coming in at a lean 3.2% market share: who would those same malware writers be targeting? Oh, I think they would be targeting Linux. I bet we would see more process hiding on linux, alterations the sys_call table, heap and stack overflows, process forking, and so on. Furthermore, I must stress that one of things I really do admire about linux and the community that maintains it is the speed at which things are fixed. However, in the event that linux was under the magnifying glass to the degree that Windows is, I am not sure that the community would be able to keep up. While I do not mean to say that Microsoft has done a particularly good job maintaining its OS in the face of multiple new and unique exploits being found every week (heh, there are still security risks from two years ago that haven't been fixed, which also helps to explain why malware has gotten so prevalent) that result in varying levels of security compromise, I do not think that linux community would do much better under similar circumstances.

People always say that windows has more malware because it's more targeted. While I do not doubt that windows is more targeted, I don't think that's the only reason, or even the more important reason, that it has so much spyware. Windows is just an insecure and buggy OS. Linux is just designed to be more secure. Yes, there are systems designed to be even more secure than linux, but linux just blows windows away in terms of security. There just aren't nearly as many holes.

It's too convenient to just blame it on which OS is more targeted. Windows needs to take some of the blame itself.

[rseven]

Well put MRD! You have summed up Microsoft to a T. Just one added note. Corporations are much stronger than they use to be. The days of trust busting are a dim memory. The new age of the Robber Barons is in full swing. I fear it will get worse before it gets any better. People really have to open their eyes and see what scandalous things are going on and then scream like hell! :temper:

[MRD]

In many ways, it's our own damn fault. All of the apathetic people that just keep throwing money at corporations like M$ or Sony no matter what they do are very much responsible for the problem.

Incidentally, I heard a funny joke. The corporate slogan for Gap Kids: "Clothing made for children by children"

[futura2001]

Linux has all of your prerequisites except 1. It does not have the same level of hardware compatibility as windows, but that's not an OS defect, that's a function of what 3rd party hardware developers produce. There is plenty of compatible software for linux, it's just different than what you are used to for windows. It's very high quality. Just because, say, excel doesn't run on it doesn't matter any more than the fact that gnumeric doesn't run in windows. Also, by your definition, Mac doesn't fit the bill as a business class OS either, as most software is not available for Macs and most hardware won't work with them.
I didn't say that apple produces a business class OS, and outside of a few niche markets, it is not widely used as such. The software issue is a completely different matter, and while there are open source alternatives to most office productivity suites, they are not yet developed enough to be competitive. Take openoffice for example; it still is not as fast or as productive as any of the other office suites, which Microsoft does dominate. The web based version of openoffice is very forward thinking and ultimately a step in the right direction, but it just cannot compete. Linux does not have the out of the box usability that Windows does. While it is virtually infinitely customizable, this helps cripple efforts to migrate it over to the desktop. Most people and businesses look at that customizability as a timesink, they don't want to bother with that, they just want something that runs. Windows has kept the same general look and feel since 95, and this is because the majority of people don't want to have to relearn how to use the OS every two years. Linux is getting there, but it is still too fragmented in its current state. Sure, a business could just set a mandate as to which of the available choices to use for each and every part of the OS, but what happens when those projects stop new development. There isn't much if any guarantee that anything currently developed for linux will continue to be refined two, five, or ten years from now.

Well, I don't install windows 2x every week, this was an unusually bad one. =p I download all my installers to a file server so that I don't have to redownload every time I install stuff. After I reformatted windows due to a trojan downloader virus I could not get rid of (I tried norton av, macafee, spybot, hijackthis, clamav, pandascan, and some other random ****, nothing worked), I reinstalled, and it somehow got back. So I blew out my download directory on the fileserver, re-downloaded everything, and so far so good. The thing though is that malware is just a complete non issue in linux. I mean, it just doesn't happen. Ever. Never once have I had anything more malicious in linux than a tracking cookie.
Sounds more like a rootkit virus capsule than an ordinary trojan. There are some really scary projects over on rootkit.com that are enough to put fear in most admins...
As for malware, in my own anecdotal experiences I rarely ever have problems with malware, and I use IE. The only times I do have any problems stem from unpatched vulnerabilities, and these are few and far between. This is mainly because I keep tight control over what I let into my machine in the first place, and buffer what actually is let through. However, I am a bit extreme in that sense and by no means represent the majority of Windows users. On the Linux side, there are virtually no instances of linux exploits actually being put to use outside of the occasional hacker vs. hacker wargames.

Also, M$ JUST released the cluster version of windows a couple months ago, til then there was nothing. Also, I don't think there are versions of windows available for sun sparc, alphas, ibm as400 mainframes, etc. I am not 100% sure, so if I'm wrong, give me a link.
You are partially right there, however these are very insulated instances that do not have much impact. The Alpha AXP was supported by NT until Win2k RC2. The AS/400 (and iSeries/i5) can run Server 2003, Windows 2000, and *nix distros all at the same time. SPARCs are not currently able to run Windows, although now that Microsoft is starting to transistion to 64bit, that may change in the future depending on how the new sparc generation fares.

You keep saying that, but it's not true. There simply was no form of unix for any desktop architecture until long after M$ was completely dominant on the desktop. There was Mac OS, but that didn't run on x86, and was not unix based back then. Unix simply didn't enter the desktop realm until much later.
As I said, certain Apples such as members of the Apple II family could and did run Unix if the user was willing to go through the trouble, but this has about as much relevance as running linux on an ancient system that isn't windows compatible.

Not the point. Competition is WHY capitalism is good. It's why people generally benefit from capitalism as a society. Also, competition is still an inherent part of capitalism, even if you can find a few places where it does not exist.
While I partially agree with you on this point, this is probably something that is best left to the best economic minds to ruminate over. I hold that capitalism is good because of profit, economic growth and stability, private production, and employment for citizens in addition to the free market economy that breeds competition, but that is another discussion for another time as it does not exactly pertain to our general debate here. However, if you do want to continue this discussion, feel free to send me a PM.

We never had software patents for the first 25+ yrs of computing, and it didn't cause any problems. Copyright was more than enough protection for ideas. Most countries still don't have software patents. They're a very new entity, having come about in the last couple years in the US. It's not like it's some long standing part of our system.
No, arguably the first software patent was granted to BP in the sixties. If I understand correctly, what really opened the floodgates, however, was the supreme court case Diamond vs. Diehr in 1981, which revoked the 1972 ruling of Gottschalk vs. Benson. It is relatively modern, and while problems in the system didn't not overtly show themselves until the dotcom boom, they had been around twenty years prior.

Actually, the possibility of creating coercive monopolies is considered by many (including me) to be the main flaw of capitalism. We don't punish them for being successful per se, but we do take action when their market dominance threatens the consumer. That is what anti-trust is all about. That is what broke up the phone company, standard oil, and a number of other megacorps.
I agree, this is one of the flaws of capitalism. Inversely however, market competition can also be thought of as a flaw of capitalism as it ultimately forces the losers out of the system. Large corporations ultimately are able to have a certain degree of control over the flow of the system by being able to put new competitors out of business before they become a threat. While this is the corporate version of babykilling, there are legal ways to go about it that are in no way illegal. Marketing is a perfect example of this.

Sure it can. We can pass new laws preventing certain types of predatory business practices that create monopolies and remove competition from the marketplace. All companies should be aware that the good of the people is more important than their profits, and that if necessary, the government will act to reintroduce competition into a monopolized market sector.
Careful there, too much governmental control will destroy the free market economy, and this in of itself will remove competition from the system. And then you have to get into whether forcing businesses to act in the "good of the people" will actually result in such. Such enforcements could ultimately lead to economic instability, market decline, loss of jobs and income... and while companies would be forced to act in the good of the people, the people wouldn't have the income to purchase the fruits of such a system.

No other company has ever engaged in predatory business practices on the scale of M$. No other company is responsible for putting so many competitors out of business and preventing so many good ideas from taking hold.
What corporations are you using to weigh Microsoft against? Furthermore, have you looked into the largest corporations around the world and how they got to be where they are today?

Actually, you just proved my point. Why not just ship a PC without an OS? Why include FreeDOS? Because M$ makes them do it. They found a loophole. I expect M$ will take action to plug it up soonish. Also, the consumer can't get the freedos thing, that's enterprise only also. Dell even made it clear that this was not intended for linux servers, but for companies that already have valid M$ licenses.
Maybe, but this does not address the issue of why Dell doesn't ship consumer boxes running Linux. The investment in Red Hat indicates to me that while Dell may or may not ultimately choose to ship desktop Linux systems, they do not see a large enough market right now or they do not think Linux is ready. Furthermore, in the assumption that Dell and Microsoft have some unholy, illegal contract signed in blood of the firstborn, what would happen if Dell did start shipping Linux desktops? You might say that Microsoft would then try to enact on the terms of said illegal contract, but if Dell were to bring the issue to court, Microsoft would lose and be found violating the antitrust ruling of 2001, which would probably open a whole new antitrust case. You seem to think that Microsoft is somehow abusing their monopoly here, but the legal ramifications for doing so at this time are enormous. It is mostly for this reason that I believe Microsoft probably is not abusing its power as a monopoly.

But the point is that it simply doesn't happen in linux. Ever. It doesn't require any effort to prevent malware.
And my point is that while one in theory could program a completely new OS that would not be susceptable to the malware floating around now, it would not be secure, just obscure. Such is the case with Linux, it is too obscure right now.

People always say that windows has more malware because it's more targeted. While I do not doubt that windows is more targeted, I don't think that's the only reason, or even the more important reason, that it has so much spyware. Windows is just an insecure and buggy OS. Linux is just designed to be more secure. Yes, there are systems designed to be even more secure than linux, but linux just blows windows away in terms of security. There just aren't nearly as many holes.

It's too convenient to just blame it on which OS is more targeted. Windows needs to take some of the blame itself.
I don't disagree that Linux was made with security in mind to a further degree than Windows has been, saying that there aren't nearly as many holes is most likely untrue. Saying that there haven't been nearly as many holes found would be a more accurate statement.

[futura2001]

In many ways, it's our own damn fault. All of the apathetic people that just keep throwing money at corporations like M$ or Sony no matter what they do are very much responsible for the problem.

Incidentally, I heard a funny joke. The corporate slogan for Gap Kids: "Clothing made for children by children"
FUBU for kids, eh?
Speaking of monopolies, Gap not only makes the clean-cut Gap and related lines of clothing, they also own hot topic and make money of all the people who are trying to "be different" from the norm...

[JenBell]

Its like this, people in the majority are never happy being the majority!

[futura2001]

Its like this, people in the majority are never happy being the majority!
Yep. And conversely, people in the minority are never happy society's lack of acceptance of their minority, so they promote the agenda of whatever minority they are a part of and don't realize that by doing so they destroy the "underground subculture" of the minority and become just another part of the masses.
Kind of sad, isn't it?

[Commander_Kang]

Futura2001 and MRD while I dont have much if anything at all to add to this since I think you both covered it I have to commend the two of you on making a very interesting and fairly civil discusion :thup:

[Mr.Guvernment]

Yep. And conversely, people in the minority are never happy society's lack of acceptance of their minority, so they promote the agenda of whatever minority they are a part of and don't realize that by doing so they destroy the "underground subculture" of the minority and become just another part of the masses.
Kind of sad, isn't it?


so true! and then they complain when they dont get their special minority treatment anymore :(

i have been part of both worlds living abroad.

[twoeyes]

Fact of the matter is that if someone releases their product specs, someone else is going to come along, produce it for less money,

Yes, and let me tell you that it wont be an american company :)

[futura2001]

Futura2001 and MRD while I dont have much if anything at all to add to this since I think you both covered it I have to commend the two of you on making a very interesting and fairly civil discusion :thup:
I and I am sure MRD as well are well aware of how easy this sort of discussion could turn into a flame war. It is much more difficult to make sure that it doesn't degenerate into a flame war, even while it is much more beneficial and educational to ensure that it doesn't.
While I am not so brash to think that either one of us changed the others opinions, I do think that (hopedully) we both learned from it, and that is worth the effort of keeping the thread from bursting into flames.

so true! and then they complain when they dont get their special minority treatment anymore :(
Indeed, and while we aren't blind to what is better, we only see the positives and not the negatives that inherently come with the positives. What good is it if you can see greener grass on the other side of the fence, but are unable to see the nettles and thorns that grow amongst the grasses?

[-maddog-]

Indeed, and while we aren't blind to what is better, we only see the positives and not the negatives that inherently come with the positives. What good is it if you can see greener grass on the other side of the fence, but are unable to see the nettles and thorns that grow amongst the grasses?

Agree.

[masakabassist]

Im all for Microsoft dont get me wrong, but they hold so much of the market it is extremely difficult for a group to develope something and get into the market. I think this is a smart move by the EU, it helps little companies get into the wider world.

[Super Nade]

Guys, I'm gonna throw in my 0.02 c.

The only problem with linux is hardware support. You have to make sure the particular hardware is supported or resort to using the less efficient NDISWrapper route. I found this out the hard way last night. (MRD, check my cry for help in the Blue Room).

So, no drivers exist for the Netgear WG111 wireless USB device. What could I do? Nothing really. I was loathe to use NDISWrapper, as the convoluted procedure threw me off (I'm a newb). The next best alternative was to check NIC compatbility and pick the NIC that had drivers. So I headed out to CompUSSR and purchased an NIC for $15.

So, as long as this situation exists, I don't think we will see widespread adaptation of Linux.