MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?

Shenan Stanley wrote:

Although this discussion is a bit interesting, I have to bring up the
point that not many people are disagreeing on the actual points
given, but their interpretation of the points. A minor flaw, but
certainly one seen in this thread.

Also - I would like to point out that while the suggestion of
diversification could be considered valid in a security point of
view, do those suggesting it have any plan of action to help push
this suggestion into reality or are they "out of ideas" when it comes
to teaching the masses how to "think differently"? (*grin*)

The reason I bring that up is that the majority of users I know have
trouble doing the simplest of tasks on a computer - no matter their
OS - learning something "new" to them is a daunting task. Interest -
to say the least - is not there.

--
- Shenan -


What? You want a detailed plan on how'd I think MS should be broken up?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

Shenan Stanley wrote:
Although this discussion is a bit interesting, I have to bring up the
point that not many people are disagreeing on the actual points
given, but their interpretation of the points. A minor flaw, but
certainly one seen in this thread.

Also - I would like to point out that while the suggestion of
diversification could be considered valid in a security point of
view, do those suggesting it have any plan of action to help push
this suggestion into reality or are they "out of ideas" when it comes
to teaching the masses how to "think differently"? (*grin*)

The reason I bring that up is that the majority of users I know have
trouble doing the simplest of tasks on a computer - no matter their
OS - learning something "new" to them is a daunting task. Interest -
to say the least - is not there.

kurttrail wrote:
What? You want a detailed plan on how'd I think MS should be broken
up?

That's up to you..

You seem to throw forth (a lot) that breaking Microsoft up (in some unknown
form) would make the world a more secure place and somehow end their
"monopoly" on the OS market.. Just how would Microsoft have to be split up
that would somehow create more competition and/or less of a monopoly of some
division of the broken up company?

--
- Shenan -
--

Shenan Stanley wrote:

Shenan Stanley wrote:
Although this discussion is a bit interesting, I have to bring up the
point that not many people are disagreeing on the actual points
given, but their interpretation of the points. A minor flaw, but
certainly one seen in this thread.

Also - I would like to point out that while the suggestion of
diversification could be considered valid in a security point of
view, do those suggesting it have any plan of action to help push
this suggestion into reality or are they "out of ideas" when it comes
to teaching the masses how to "think differently"? (*grin*)

The reason I bring that up is that the majority of users I know have
trouble doing the simplest of tasks on a computer - no matter their
OS - learning something "new" to them is a daunting task. Interest -
to say the least - is not there.

kurttrail wrote:
What? You want a detailed plan on how'd I think MS should be broken
up?

That's up to you..

You seem to throw forth (a lot) that breaking Microsoft up (in some
unknown form) would make the world a more secure place and somehow
end their "monopoly" on the OS market.. Just how would Microsoft
have to be split up that would somehow create more competition and/or
less of a monopoly of some division of the broken up company?

--
- Shenan -

By making their OS Open Source, of course.

There would be no over-night way we can changed the One PC OS vulnerability,
but after fines and break up, the resulting broken up companies wouldn't
have the clout to dominate the market. It was done to MA Bell, it can be
done to MS. But of course it would take years to build a competive market.
I can go into much greater detail, but what is most important at the moment
is that people start to recognize that this One PC OS market is the biggest
whole in the general public's computer security, and blaming the MicroRape
victim won't solve a thing.

But what you should notice is that none of the guys argueing against me has
even bother to answer you, as they were really only to try to get me off my
topic, to protect their beloved MS. Are you suggesting that we should just
grudgingly accept the 95% final solution as our lot, and do nothing? What
would be your constructive idea to get us out of the One PC OS
target-basket? If the target stays the same, the schmucks that keep trying
to hit it, will only become better at hitting it, and hit it better and
bigger weapons. We can hide our heads in the sand, or we can start
pressuring our gov'ts to act in the bests interests of the public's welfare.
Microsoft has proven time and again they can't or won't act in our public
interest, it's time for our gov'ts to do something about it!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

Shenan;
You may be better off to drop it.
I did when he showed his true self with his name calling.

Kurt's goal is apparently to keep his name on the Microsoft page with
the longest thread.
Note #6 on this link:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...e/default.mspx
His excessive cross posting helps him further his goal.

He is also very free to suggest others make their own property "Open
Source".
Doubtful he set the proper example by giving all his services/property
away for free.
..
--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
An easier way to read newsgroup messages:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...oups/setup.asp
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
...
You seem to throw forth (a lot) that breaking Microsoft up (in some
unknown
form) would make the world a more secure place and somehow end their
"monopoly" on the OS market.. Just how would Microsoft have to be
split up
that would somehow create more competition and/or less of a monopoly
of some
division of the broken up company?

--
- Shenan -

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

Shenan;
You may be better off to drop it.
I did when he showed his true self with his name calling.

Kurt's goal is apparently to keep his name on the Microsoft page with
the longest thread.
Note #6 on this link:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...e/default.mspx
His excessive cross posting helps him further his goal.

He is also very free to suggest others make their own property "Open
Source".
Doubtful he set the proper example by giving all his services/property
away for free.
.

"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
...
You seem to throw forth (a lot) that breaking Microsoft up (in some
unknown form) would make the world a more secure place and somehow
end their "monopoly" on the OS market.. Just how would Microsoft
have to be split up that would somehow create more competition
and/or less of a monopoly of some division of the broken up company?

--
- Shenan -

No you ran away. And exactly what name did I call you?

"Stay on topic, answer the question, and stop playing your WinTroll games,
Juppy."

I used WinTroll to describe your games, not you, so you must have the
problem with "Juppy."

Time for "Juppy" to run away again!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

kurttrail wrote:

But what you should notice is that none of the guys argueing against
me has even bother to answer you, as they were really only to try to
get me off my topic, to protect their beloved MS.

Actually, I was in bed asleep and then at work all day. The world is a very
big place Kurt and not all of us live in the same timezone as you.

And I don't see the point of continuing a "discussion" with someone who has
such a narrow view of the world. Good day to you sir.

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

Shenan;
You may be better off to drop it.
I did when he showed his true self with his name calling.

I already covered this.

Kurt's goal is apparently to keep his name on the Microsoft page with
the longest thread.
Note #6 on this link:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...e/default.mspx

When did MS add this feature? This is actually the first I've heard of it.
I must say I find it hysterical! I should have cross-posted this with
alt.os.windows-xp too. I would have been number one on the list!

His excessive cross posting helps him further his goal.

6 group isn't all that excessive, and I have valid reasons why I posted this
thread in each.


He is also very free to suggest others make their own property "Open
Source".

No, I was suggesting that our gov'ts do it for MS, in order to protect the
general public from the MicroTarget.

Doubtful he set the proper example by giving all his services/property
away for free.

First off, MS's software is neither a service or property, it is copyrighted
material.

And I do freely give of my copyrighted material. http://kurttrail.com &
http://microscum.com

More MicroTroll games, Juppy? I'm not afraid to sink down to you level, if
you're up for it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

Robert Moir wrote:

kurttrail wrote:

But what you should notice is that none of the guys argueing against
me has even bother to answer you, as they were really only to try to
get me off my topic, to protect their beloved MS.

Actually, I was in bed asleep and then at work all day. The world is
a very big place Kurt and not all of us live in the same timezone as
you.

And I don't see the point of continuing a "discussion" with someone
who has such a narrow view of the world. Good day to you sir.

Robert - "It [the MacOS] has these problems with buggy code that require you
to
download periodic updates. There is this especially nasty one with an
exploit in how it handles DHCP."

Kurt - "Thank you for proving my point! What percentage of computer users
were
under threat of this AppleOS DHCP exploit? 2 to 4%! Not 95%! Now say
there were 5 PCOS companies out there, and for the sake of argument let's
say that they share the PCOS market equally, what percentage of users are
potentially at risk by an exploit of any one given companies OS? That's
right! 20%. Not 95%. So which PCOS market would be a safer for the
general public, a market with one big fat-assed OS, or one with multiple
OS[s]
where the risks are spread out over multiple targets?"

Couldn't find a way to answer that without admitting I'm right, huh?

I do believe you're the one with the narrow view. Good day to you too, sir!
vbg

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

In article , in the
microsoft.public.security news group, kurttrail
says...

"[T]he link is formatted


Please don't feed the trolls, if you do, they tend to hang around.


--
Paul Adare
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo.
H. G. Wells, The Wife of Sir Isaac Harman

Paul Adare wrote:

In article , in the
microsoft.public.security news group, kurttrail
says...

"[T]he link is formatted


Please don't feed the trolls, if you do, they tend to hang around.


--
Paul Adare
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo.
H. G. Wells, The Wife of Sir Isaac Harman

You do realize that this thread had just about run it's course, don't you?


And if I were really a troll, I'd get off on morons like you telling others
not to feed me. Parroting the "Don't feed the troll" line, is just more
troll food, and is just a unnecessary display of your moral indignation.
It's a pity that you aren't bright enough to figure that you're not only a
witless TrollFeeder, but you're also showing your jealousy with a halo.

Have A Nice Day! vbeg

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

Shenan Stanley wrote:

Shenan Stanley wrote:
Although this discussion is a bit interesting, I have to bring up the
point that not many people are disagreeing on the actual points
given, but their interpretation of the points. A minor flaw, but
certainly one seen in this thread.

Also - I would like to point out that while the suggestion of
diversification could be considered valid in a security point of
view, do those suggesting it have any plan of action to help push
this suggestion into reality or are they "out of ideas" when it comes
to teaching the masses how to "think differently"? (*grin*)

The reason I bring that up is that the majority of users I know have
trouble doing the simplest of tasks on a computer - no matter their
OS - learning something "new" to them is a daunting task. Interest -
to say the least - is not there.

kurttrail wrote:
What? You want a detailed plan on how'd I think MS should be broken
up?

Shenan Stanley wrote:
That's up to you..

You seem to throw forth (a lot) that breaking Microsoft up (in some
unknown form) would make the world a more secure place and somehow
end their "monopoly" on the OS market.. Just how would Microsoft
have to be split up that would somehow create more competition and/or
less of a monopoly of some division of the broken up company?

D'oh! I just noticed that this thread spreads across WAY too many
groups.. When did it become necessary to cross post to discuss
something?!

When the subject affects more that one group. Why are all newsreaders set
up to allow cross-posting? Because there is nothing intinsically wrong with
cross-posting, that's why.

So instead of bitchin' about something that is perfectly acceptable, why
don't you try and answer the questions I asked you.

"Are you suggesting that we should just grudgingly accept the 95% final
solution as our lot, and do nothing? What would be your constructive idea
to get us out of the One PC OS target-basket?"

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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.

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. ;-)

Thanks for being a mensch!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

Shenan Stanley wrote:

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.

Totally agree.



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.

Most of those people still using 9x/ME just haven't bought a new
computer since XP was released. What "forces" most people to upgrade is
buying a new OEM computer.


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.

In effect, that situation is kinda happening now, in the corporate
world, where many IT departments haven't adopted Windows XP and/or Sever
2003 & Office XP and/or Office 2003. The expense and hassle of
upgrading out weighs any of the benifits of using the newest software.

No doubt the name of Microsoft would live long after its hypothethical
demise.


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?

Oh, I didn't mention that I didn't mention that Bill goes back to his
garage. [Joking.] Good point. Hadn't considered it actually, but
there could be an interim period after the break up where the Office
Systems Corp. would develop patches & host WinUpdate, 5 to 7 years.


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.

That would be the Post-AOL version of USENET netiquette. But I would
agree that excessive chronic cross-posting is annoying, but it's not
like I do it every day, or even every month.

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.

Well it took me a day to realize that you had cut out all the groups
except this one, as I've been keeping up with it through xp.general, you
sly dog you! This has definitely been a refreshing change for me from
the conversations I'm used to having! Thanks again.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

kurttrail wrote:

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5149066.html

More & more, people are wising up that MS is the problem, not a part of
the solution.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

Robert Moir wrote:

snipped on both ends

If I thought they were waiting to include it in a roll-up fix then I
would/will agree with you. I've not seen anything pointing to that
myself, I'm assuming that fixing this is more trouble than it
appeared at first and they've had to go back to it a couple of times.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tre...n/MS04-004.asp

Well they waited to fix it to included in a IE cumulative patch! You
guys should really learn to listen to me!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"