Responses inline..

kurttrail wrote:
Shenan Stanley wrote:

Everyone always brings up MaBell when this subject rolls around about
Microsoft. The problem I see is that the comparison, while holding
some validity, falls short in many ways. Essentially - service vs
product monopoly. The idea is the same, but there are some subtle
differences when you think on it that doesn't guarantee changes if
just a break-up occurs.

Well, I could go back to Standard Oil! I agree that there is no exact
comparison with either, but the general principal remains valid.
Breakup of the monopoly was necessary for the good of society as a
whole.


I cannot find any flaw in the generalized logic here. I would have to even
say I agree. Perhaps this particular monopoly has outgrown any of the
examples discussed so far - at least in terms of impact/spread. The
influence of MS does extend beyond any example I can think of, including
those given so far.


As for going open-source.. the idea sounds pleasing at first, except
when you consider that it probably wouldn't go anywhere for decades
and then the fear would be too much diversity.

I'd guess somewhere under a decade to develop a stable competitive
market.


Although I can see it happening within a decade, I'm not going to change my
original answer here. It's likely it would take a decade or more, but we
are talking true hypotheticals here - Let's just say I agree it WOULD
stabalize at some point - it would not be quick.


If I change jobs
and/or move to another state, will I be using "Kurttrail's Office
Suite" on "Megalard's Doors" OS where I was used to working on
"Smiley's Productivity Set" on "Big Tex's" OS? Simpler yet - can
Kurttrail's Office Suite read my Smiley's Productivity Set
spreadsheet, modify it and send it back to me in a format I can edit
again?

OK, I need to clarify this misunderstanding. I only meant that
Windows, for the most part, would go open source. I was being vague
with you, because I thought you were being like the other guys, just
more subtle, so I trying to smoke you out. Sorry, those other guys
were just trying to defend MS at any cost, and that cost was proving
my point for me, with their own examples.

OK. So only Windows goes Open Source, what happens with the rest of
MS? Business Apps and services would be the main part of MS that
would survive, but with the condition that their file formats were
non-proprietary, and it's present file formats would be open to all.
Office really isn't all that much of a monopoly on it's own, and
without proprietary file formats & the Windows OS to back it up, so
Star Office, Perfect Office, & Open Office will have the opportunity
to play in the office apps market on a fair playing field, all
playing under the same rules. Windows Media Player, Messenger,
MovieMaker, and the rest of the MS-bundle middleware except IE would
be the moved to the new Office Systems Corp, [As a condition of the
breakup Microsoft name would be prohibited from being used ever
again. So let it be written, so let it be done!] along with MS's
Business Services division. While Office Systems would still be the
dominate player for years, their market share would diminish with
time.

Now we get to MSN and the rest of the MS's net holdings, and we sell
it off to the highest bidder. [Google ends up buying it, forcing the
AOL/Yahoo merger.] The XBox & MS's gaming software division are made
into the XBox Games Corp. [And buys out Nintendo.] Ok, so the break
up of MS creates other mega-companies, nobodies perfect, and at least
there will still be competition in those markets, and during the
decade or so it takes for the dust to settle other players might join
in on those markets.


Ah - now see this makes things more interesting for me. Not only does JUST
making Windows open source make more sense (*to me) but it actually would
make the playing field more even in a quicker fashion. It does add some
possibility that one of the other guys (*nix/novell) adds what little they
need to have full use of the current office suites and quickly takes the
ball and runs for a while (they become the "big-boy OS on the block") - but
I think that would fade over time.


I know - that's a bit extreme, but it is not (other than the names)
completely impossible to imagine. Right now Office on the MAC
sometimes has trouble with Office on the PC documents.. And Open
Office doesn't read everything about Word or WordPerfect documents
flawlessly. If you open the field too much without standards already
in place (there isn't any now.. And there likely wouldn't be until
after this became an actual problem) - you may be asking for trouble.
That's just an opinion and one possibility - so it's not necessarily
what I *believe* would happen - but a possibility.

As long as you understand that I just talking in hypotheticals too.
Believe me, the consequences of the breakup of MS would definitely
not be all that smooth. You can't make an omelet without breaking a
few eggs.


I can agree on that.


I think before we go screaming "Open Source" and "Break Up
Microsoft", we should consider forcing them to follow some standards
that we come out with.

Three years ago, I'd be with you on that. But the security situation
has heated up to a point that it is totally foolhardy to continue
down this same path, where there is really only one target to hit.
The bigger & better guns are coming, and MS target is just too big to
miss.

http://www.ccianet.org/papers/cyberinsecurity.pdf


Very nice reading.. In fact - in many ways it makes the points you have
presented very nearly for you. I will only add here that if anyone reading
this thread does not have Acrobat Reader (which is weird - but possible) but
can see HTML - may read the PDF converted to HTML he

http://www.macleans.net/MRHS59/cyberinsecurity.html

*Advice to the masses that may read this:*
Even if you believe that some of the ideas here(in this thread) are a bit
radical, the document above (I bet there are more like it out there) does
make good reading and thought provoking material. Some may argue that fact
with me, but I think you cannot truly make a decision until you see all
sides of something - radical or not. Some of the best results I have ever
gotten out of any project started with someone saying something completely
off-the-wall and a group "whittling it down" to the core. If you don't have
the same feelings/experiences - throw them out into the fray here - I, for
one, am willing to see more viewpoints.


One reason they have a large market share is
because it's easy to use and most people will act like electricity at
all times.. "Take the shortest path to ground." The right attitude?
Maybe not - but I could never, in good conscience, say that the way
everything (software/market share) is today is just Microsoft's fault
- it's also people in general and their innate laziness or, rather
than calling the whole human race lazy - how about "lack of
interest". Your common computer user wants to sit down and use their
computer to surf the web, get their email, pay some bills - and then
go back to TV/sports/music/cooking/knitting/whatever their real
interest is. So - they are not willing or just don't see the point
in learning enough to use something other than "point and click and
you have 5 ways to do almost every task."

So, hey, I do not totally disagree with your convictions. I think
you are on one end of a large spectrum and there will be, naturally,
another side of the story. I lie somewhere in the middle - as most
"computer people" do. I can use just about any OS/application you
throw at me - whether I do or not has a lot to do with my desire in
that particular app. If Microsoft broke up, if Windows went open
source, if Lindows started becoming the OS of choice - I would adapt
and move on. I support my customers/family/friends with the
knowledge I have and taking their needs into consideration - and with
all of that in mind - Windows is still on top for the end-user OS in
my mind. It has the most apps/drivers/hardware configuration
possibilities of any OS with the least amount of TRUE effort on the
end-users part. This appeals to the "non-interested, gimme my Final
Fantasy and the rest of the computer can rot" persona as well as the
"less casual and intense cannot live without my email, spreadsheet,
gaming system with the water cooling and remote control" individual.

I agree.


There's one point I cannot disagree with. *grin*


Preach on - I will listen - and you've at least - if nothing else -
made me consider things I might not have before.

Well, I have quite finished the MS Break-up story, have I? That's
right what really happens to Windows once it is Open Source. SCO
immediately puts out XPSP2 under the name of SCOdows, and is
immediately sued by LindowsOS for infringing on their trademark. In
2007, SCO releases SCOhorn, without the SCOFS. In 2008, SCO goes
bankrupt as SCOhorn is a total disaster, because of disgruntled
former MS employees sabotage, and IBM buys SCO, just for spite.

Let's get back to just after the breakup. RedHat & Novell compete to
see who can get Windows APIs ported in their version of Linux first,
but is beaten to the punch by Xandros, in the first quarter of 2004.
Symantec puts out their version, which they call Wintec, based on 2K
but with V2i security, making it the most bomb proof Win-Clone OS,
because on any catastrophic OS failure, on reboot, the last known
working OS setup would be reloaded in minutes, without any user or
tech intervention. Symantec stock soars on the strength of its VL
sales, and OEM licensing deal with Dell. Sun releases JavaXP, and it
does well for a time, especially of home users, until the Linux boys
port the WinAPIs into Linux . . . .

Though I quite aware that none of this is really gonna happen this
year or probably anytime soon, I do believe that some breakup of MS
is inevitable based on their past actions, those since the Anti-Trust
settlement, and because MS's OS is gonna get hit so bad one day, and
probably sooner than later, that are gov'ts will be forced to act.
And while the breakup of MS may well narrow competition in its non-OS
markets in the short term, the Open Sourcing of Windows and its APIs
could well become a truly competitive market in 5 years time.


Now that is a well thought out theoretical world. I can see all of that as
distinct possibilities after a MS breakup - if one were to occur. Truly, it
proves the point that anything - at least more than now - would be possible
to occur in the OS market.

The real "time for change" factor would be the people. I go back to my
earlier story enclosing the idea that "people act like electricity". How
many times a day do I already deal with "Why did we have to change - things
were great the way they were?!" - and just shake my head? (Let's just say
"too much" and leave it at that!) The same attitude would be taken by the
majority of end-users of the product. The only big advantage I see (going
along the theories laid out in this thgread about a breakup) is that there
are still a lot of people using Windows 98 and BEFORE that have not made the
XP switch.. But as time passes, more and more people switch and as they get
over their initial "This is different, this sucks, I used to click here and
this did that, but now it's *different*" - hate of change - they are likely
to stick with that until forced to change.

Here's a new theoretical for you (based on all - including the new part
directly above).. With the MS OS going "open source", would that slow
hardware advancement and/or allow those who have changed recently and gotten
comfortable with the latest OS to be even more lethargic because now - with
competition - coding gets better and better and so it runs on less powerful
hardware and because they don't see anything "better" out there yet and
their stuff still functions - it gives them longer to NOT CHANGE - thus
extending the turmoil further into the future than it would be if people
were more willing to change. (Sorry - run on sentence - hope it makes
sense.) Essentially, I see the possibility that it will be the end-user
that extends the life of the MS name - not any doing of the corporations.

Which brought up another thought. What happens to those(end-users) that do
stay and (albeit an imperfect method, it is a good idea in concept) depend
on the WindowsUpdate site to help them be more secure - who gets that and
the responsibility that goes with it to maintain the support for the OS that
is out there for its conceivable life?

But - perhaps you
should cross-post less. *grin*

I can't even remember the last time I cross-posted to multiple
groups, and this thread is relevant to all the groups I choose, so in
this case I am not gonna feel the least bit guilty adding back all
the groups you cut from your reply. ;-)


Although I agree with the idea that the thread would be relevant (at least a
good read) to several of the groups - including some you do not include - I
stick to my "drilled in" netiquette and post on only one of them. What you
do, that is entirely up to you. ;-)


Thanks for being a mensch!


hah - No problem. Thank you for the compliment.

A discussion isn't a true discussion without opposing sides - or at least
different points-of-view. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me in
terms (true hypothetical situations) that make the points not only clearer
to me, but perhaps anyone else reading this thread. It's always easy to
throw out an argument - backing it up is the part most people dread. :-)

I would like to add that the reason I did not respond faster was work/life
related. I may take a while to respond sometimes, but if the topic is
decent - I'll get to it.

--
- Shenan -
--