If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
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!" |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
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 - -- |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
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!) LOL! 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!" |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
You might want to take issue with MS about cross-posting. MS added it to
its new CDO interface. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...owsxp.newusers Click on the New post or on Reply button, then in the popup window, click on Advanced Options. -- 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!" |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
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!" |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
Scrolling issues also confirmed to be fixed by this previous post.
From: "The PocketTV Team" Subject: KB832894 patch fixes IE6 double-scroll bug Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:49:04 -0800 Organization: PocketTV - http://www.pockettv.com FYI: MS just fixed the double-scroll bug in their latest IE6 patch, released today (KB832894). see http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tre...n/MS04-004.asp This bug fix is not documented in the patch information, but this latest patch silently fixes the double-scroll bug introduced in the Q824145/K824145 "update". -- Henri Leboeuf Web page: http://www.generation.net/~hleboeuf/index.htm "kurttrail" wrote in message ... 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!" |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
H Leboeuf wrote:
Scrolling issues also confirmed to be fixed by this previous post. From: "The PocketTV Team" Subject: KB832894 patch fixes IE6 double-scroll bug Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:49:04 -0800 Organization: PocketTV - http://www.pockettv.com FYI: MS just fixed the double-scroll bug in their latest IE6 patch, released today (KB832894). see http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tre...n/MS04-004.asp This bug fix is not documented in the patch information, but this latest patch silently fixes the double-scroll bug introduced in the Q824145/K824145 "update". shaking head And they didn't document it. I guess the extra paragraph would have cut into their bottom line! -- 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!" |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
Microsoft doesn't make only one OS.
WinXP has a different oleaut32.dll than Win2k than Win9x than DOS. Point in case, Microsoft has gone the route of selling 20 operating systems all different in many ways, all similar in many ways. A global attack on Windows machines won't affect every Microsoft OS and probably won't even touch DOS. Being that DOS IS a variation of Unix whats the difference? That DOS uses a backslash and Unix uses a forward slash? I'm just being stupid by posting to this message, but I think I have a somewhat unobtrusive point to present. -- Jim Carlock http://www.microcosmotalk.com/ Post replies to the newsgroup. "kurttrail" wrote in message ... Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote: Kurt; Stay with your facts. I did, notice that I was quoting myself. I never even suggested "one big target of an OS" is the way to go. You were disputing my arguement that MS's monopoy OS is what is the biggest security hole for the general public by blaming the general public. Those are your words and ideas. Which you were trying to dispute by blaming the victims, rather than the delivery system of being locked into one big fat target of a Desktop OS. You seem to need to falsely put statements to others in order to support your ideas. No, I trying to actually get you to confront my ideas, instead of doing the side-step shuffle to protect your Masters. To bad you can not support your point on its own merit. I already have, it's you that have not support any contrary point the dimishes my opinion in the slightest bit. Furthermore you start to name calling. What else could you be called when you only answer that most inconsequential part of my post, and leave the meat of it untouched? That's exactly the tactics of a troll. Name calling is strong evidence that you lack the ability to support your own point of view. My point has been proved, and only the MicroDeafDumb&Blind can't see it. MS's desktop OS monopoly is the biggest security risk for the general public today, because that one giant-assed target can't help from getting hit. It's a hell of a lot easier to hit one bird with one stone, than two birds with one stone. I have common sense on my side, you have only your unwavering devotion to MS to back you up. Thank you! -- 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!" |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
Xref: kermit microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser: 286222 microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:1020330 microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web:194256 microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers:125151 microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin:141127
"Jim Carlock" wrote: Microsoft doesn't make only one OS. WinXP has a different oleaut32.dll than Win2k than Win9x than DOS. Point in case, Microsoft has gone the route of selling 20 operating systems all different in many ways, all similar in many ways. A global attack on Windows machines won't affect every Microsoft OS and probably won't even touch DOS. MS currently sells XP Home, XP Pro and Server 2003. I'm not sure whether they are currently selling Win2000 (but I don't think so). That's far fewer than 20 operating systems. A global attack on any MS system will affect *many, many* computers. How many has Blaster hit? No, it won't affect DOS, but how many computers use DOS anymore? Being that DOS IS a variation of Unix whats the difference? That DOS uses a backslash and Unix uses a forward slash? DOS is in some ways a pale imitation of Unix. But DOS cannot be said to be a variation of Unix, there are HUGE differences. Unix was built to be a multi-user OS to be run on quite large machines. DOS was built to run on tiny computers that would have all they could do to handle a single user. They have very little in common. -- Tim Slattery MS MVP(DTS) |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
In article , Tim Slattery wrote:
MS currently sells XP Home, XP Pro and Server 2003. I'm not sure whether they are currently selling Win2000 (but I don't think so). That's far fewer than 20 operating systems. A global attack on any MS system will affect *many, many* computers. How many has Blaster hit? No, it won't affect DOS, but how many computers use DOS anymore? And yet, and yet, and yet... How big of an effect has Blaster had on the world? Sure it's caused some significant expenditure on cleanup, but for the most part, trains have continued to run, airplanes are still flying, life-support monitors are still running, but Jim down the road can't get Solitaire to work, because his machine's too busy sending worm-seed through his ADSL line. A focussed, terrorist attack on Windows would need to be orders of magnitude more successful in order to merit anything more than "oh, great, another dateless zit-pocked teenager has found out how to run a root kit". Alun. ~~~~ [Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.] -- Texas Imperial Software | Find us at http://www.wftpd.com or email 1602 Harvest Moon Place | . Cedar Park TX 78613-1419 | WFTPD, WFTPD Pro are Windows FTP servers. Fax/Voice +1(512)258-9858 | Try our NEW client software, WFTPD Explorer. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
"Alun Jones [MS MVP]" wrote in message
m... A focussed, terrorist attack on Windows would need to be orders of magnitude more successful in order to merit anything more than "oh, great, another dateless zit-pocked teenager has found out how to run a root kit". LOL I love this; can I quote you? G -- Hyperlinks are used to ensure advice remains current Do NOT send me an email. I will NOT see it (thank the spammers and viruses) _______________________________________ Sandi - Microsoft MVP since 1999 (IE/OE) http://www.mvps.org/inetexplorer |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
In article , "Sandi - Microsoft MVP" wrote:
"Alun Jones [MS MVP]" wrote in message om... A focussed, terrorist attack on Windows would need to be orders of magnitude more successful in order to merit anything more than "oh, great, another dateless zit-pocked teenager has found out how to run a root kit". LOL I love this; can I quote you? G Please do. Quite frankly, I'm more bored by the tedium of the "wave of worms" than frightened by the threat. There's nothing interesting, technically speaking, about any of the new worms. It's just antisocial tosspots who have nothing better to do than try to spray paint their names on walls around the world - except their mums won't let them buy spray paint for fear that they'll sniff it and kill off their one remaining brain cell. So they do the next best thing - send out a bunch of email versions of a Turing test, to see whether anyone's having a "stupid moment" that renders them incapable of "running it to see what it does". Alun. ~~~~ [Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.] -- Texas Imperial Software | Find us at http://www.wftpd.com or email 1602 Harvest Moon Place | . Cedar Park TX 78613-1419 | WFTPD, WFTPD Pro are Windows FTP servers. Fax/Voice +1(512)258-9858 | Try our NEW client software, WFTPD Explorer. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
Jim Carlock wrote:
Microsoft doesn't make only one OS. WinXP has a different oleaut32.dll than Win2k than Win9x than DOS. Point in case, Microsoft has gone the route of selling 20 operating systems all different in many ways, all similar in many ways. A global attack on Windows machines won't affect every Microsoft OS and probably won't even touch DOS. Since more than half the machines out already aren't running w9x, the one different file won't be mattering much. Being that DOS IS a variation of Unix whats the difference? That DOS uses a backslash and Unix uses a forward slash? I'm just being stupid by posting to this message, but I think I have a somewhat unobtrusive point to present. -- Jim Carlock http://www.microcosmotalk.com/ Post replies to the newsgroup. "kurttrail" wrote in message ... Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote: Kurt; Stay with your facts. I did, notice that I was quoting myself. I never even suggested "one big target of an OS" is the way to go. You were disputing my arguement that MS's monopoy OS is what is the biggest security hole for the general public by blaming the general public. Those are your words and ideas. Which you were trying to dispute by blaming the victims, rather than the delivery system of being locked into one big fat target of a Desktop OS. You seem to need to falsely put statements to others in order to support your ideas. No, I trying to actually get you to confront my ideas, instead of doing the side-step shuffle to protect your Masters. To bad you can not support your point on its own merit. I already have, it's you that have not support any contrary point the dimishes my opinion in the slightest bit. Furthermore you start to name calling. What else could you be called when you only answer that most inconsequential part of my post, and leave the meat of it untouched? That's exactly the tactics of a troll. Name calling is strong evidence that you lack the ability to support your own point of view. My point has been proved, and only the MicroDeafDumb&Blind can't see it. MS's desktop OS monopoly is the biggest security risk for the general public today, because that one giant-assed target can't help from getting hit. It's a hell of a lot easier to hit one bird with one stone, than two birds with one stone. I have common sense on my side, you have only your unwavering devotion to MS to back you up. Thank you! -- 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!" -- 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!" |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
E McCann wrote:
Can we cut out the crossposts? Yes, but they can be added right back. There is nothing intriscally wrong with cross-posting. BTW, I'd put money down you wouldn't find oleaut32.dll in DOS.... DOS has no DLLs, for starters. It doesn't support object linking and embedding (OLE,) and it's not 32 bit... "Jim Carlock" wrote in message ... Microsoft doesn't make only one OS. WinXP has a different oleaut32.dll than Win2k than Win9x than DOS. Point in case, Microsoft has gone the route of selling 20 operating systems all different in many ways, all similar in many ways. A global attack on Windows machines won't affect every Microsoft OS and probably won't even touch DOS. Being that DOS IS a variation of Unix whats the difference? That DOS uses a backslash and Unix uses a forward slash? I'm just being stupid by posting to this message, but I think I have a somewhat unobtrusive point to present. -- Jim Carlock http://www.microcosmotalk.com/ Post replies to the newsgroup. "kurttrail" wrote in message ... Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote: Kurt; Stay with your facts. I did, notice that I was quoting myself. I never even suggested "one big target of an OS" is the way to go. You were disputing my arguement that MS's monopoy OS is what is the biggest security hole for the general public by blaming the general public. Those are your words and ideas. Which you were trying to dispute by blaming the victims, rather than the delivery system of being locked into one big fat target of a Desktop OS. You seem to need to falsely put statements to others in order to support your ideas. No, I trying to actually get you to confront my ideas, instead of doing the side-step shuffle to protect your Masters. To bad you can not support your point on its own merit. I already have, it's you that have not support any contrary point the dimishes my opinion in the slightest bit. Furthermore you start to name calling. What else could you be called when you only answer that most inconsequential part of my post, and leave the meat of it untouched? That's exactly the tactics of a troll. Name calling is strong evidence that you lack the ability to support your own point of view. My point has been proved, and only the MicroDeafDumb&Blind can't see it. MS's desktop OS monopoly is the biggest security risk for the general public today, because that one giant-assed target can't help from getting hit. It's a hell of a lot easier to hit one bird with one stone, than two birds with one stone. I have common sense on my side, you have only your unwavering devotion to MS to back you up. Thank you! -- 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!" -- 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!" |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
Alun Jones [MS MVP] wrote:
In article , Tim Slattery wrote: MS currently sells XP Home, XP Pro and Server 2003. I'm not sure whether they are currently selling Win2000 (but I don't think so). That's far fewer than 20 operating systems. A global attack on any MS system will affect *many, many* computers. How many has Blaster hit? No, it won't affect DOS, but how many computers use DOS anymore? And yet, and yet, and yet... How big of an effect has Blaster had on the world? Sure it's caused some significant expenditure on cleanup, but for the most part, trains have continued to run, airplanes are still flying, life-support monitors are still running, but Jim down the road can't get Solitaire to work, because his machine's too busy sending worm-seed through his ADSL line. A focussed, terrorist attack on Windows would need to be orders of magnitude more successful in order to merit anything more than "oh, great, another dateless zit-pocked teenager has found out how to run a root kit". Alun. I agree, but that doesn't mean that there won't be a zero-day bug sometime soon. That day will be a horrible mess, the day that patch & computer nasty is released in the same day. -- 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!" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|