The flat out truth! 3

[omer04]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong on something here, but...<br><br>The entire goal of breaking up a company is to HELP the over all economy.&nbsp;&nbsp;No matter how you put it, the fact that 90.0% of the computing population DOESN'T EVEN REALIZE that LINUX exists (or ANY computing platform other than windows for that matter) should send a light blinking in your head.<br><br>This lawsuit has really informed the public that there are actually some alternatives to windows, which has been good, nomatter what the outcome.<br><br>I think that breaking the company up WILL have a good effect on the economy, because Microsoft wont be as much of a super giant anymore, and wont be able to try to sell its new operating system for $200 in a competative market.<br><br>But what would be MOST beneficial is if all of the windows code is actually released!&nbsp;&nbsp;One of the NUMBER ONE factors that is holding back non windows platforms is that they cant run windows applications; therefore more than 50% of the commercial software on the market is unusable to them.&nbsp;&nbsp;Of course, open source software projects are everywhere, and there ARE alternatives to windows based programs, but the average consumer doesn't know that!&nbsp;&nbsp;If the windows code is released, then competing platforms will be able to incorporate windows emulators into their source so that they can run windows based apps for the average joe until more programs are created based on that OS to replace their windows counterparts.<br><br>I think that it is important to remember that DESPITE that fact that MS might have helped the economy as a whole, its buisness tactics have hurt other companies, and all but killed off commercial competition.&nbsp;&nbsp;<br><br>Has MS's promotion of computing helped bring computers into more people's lifes?&nbsp;&nbsp;YES<br>Has MS voluntarily allowed other companies to compete with them in an open market? NO!&nbsp;&nbsp;They've done everything under their control to prevent it.<br><br>It doesn't matter that MS's existance has helped the economy and the spread of the computer industry.&nbsp;&nbsp;The only relevent issue is that if the Windows code were released and microsoft were broken up, the computing industry as a whole would benefit.

 

[juliaroberts]

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&quot;It doesn't matter that MS's existance has helped the economy and the spread of the computer industry.&nbsp;&nbsp;The only relevent issue is that if the Windows code were released and microsoft were broken up, the computing industry as a whole would benefit &quot;<br><br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;You are asking for the moon! <br><br>This is like asking Coke to release it's secret formula so that the cola industry as a whole could benefit. Why should they?!!!! <br><br>

 

[MikeLacey]

Quite. It's difficult to see what benefit MS would get by going OpenSource, so why would they do it? <p>Mike<br><a href=mailto:michael.j.lacey@ntlworld.com>michael.j.lacey@ntlworld.com</a><br><a href=

http://www.cargill.com/>

Cargill's Corporate Web Site</a><br>

 

[gwinn7]

Breaking up MS is not the solution. Microsoft has provided standards and stability to a confused vast computer industry. Personally, I appreciate that Microsoft has developed technologies and documentation (virtually for FREE!) that is now available today for me to work with. My career, and others, are based on the success of Microsoft.

Linux may have not had the publicity or user volume, but I refused to believe that the lawsuit brought significant attention to Linux based on my observations in the media.

The fact of the matter is. The customers, you and I, have made Microsoft into what it is today. Microsoft succeeded where other companies had the technology and didn't know what to do with it and lost their turn at it.

If Microsoft broke the law, then punish them, but not break up. It wouldn't do any good anyhow!!! Otherwise, the government should stay OUT of it and let the market decide.

 

[Roverfish]

Well, perhaps you're taking some license in what you're saying, but what's written is really off target. I know I'm not going to win popularity point here, but...

&quot;Now, correct me if I'm wrong on something here, but...

The entire goal of breaking up a company is to HELP the over all economy&quot;

Actually, the goal of breaking up a monopolistic company is NOT to help the economy, it's to provide a level playing field to competitors and companies that wish to compete in that market or arena. The economy is such a distant concern from the antitrust perspective it hardly merits mentioning.

&quot;No matter how you put it, the fact that 90.0% of the computing population DOESN'T EVEN REALIZE that LINUX exists (or ANY computing platform other than windows for that matter)&quot;

I think you're mixing up facts here. 90% of the computing population USES Windows in one form or another, but I'm certainly not aware of anyone in the IT community around here (and we're a sheltered bunch) that isn't aware Linux EXISTS. Heck, a lot of us actually use the thing.

&quot;This lawsuit has really informed the public that there are actually some alternatives to windows, which has been good, nomatter what the outcome.&quot;

Here I agree with you. I think the general public HAS been informed that they have a choice, and, like cattle, have returned to grazing in Microsoft's pastures.

&quot;I think that breaking the company up WILL have a good effect on the economy, because Microsoft wont be as much of a super giant anymore, and wont be able to try to sell its new operating system for $200 in a competative market.&quot;

On the contrary, breaking up Microsoft into two companies creates TWO monopolies. The company will still continue charging what it wants so long as the majority of people are using its product.

&quot;But what would be MOST beneficial is if all of the windows code is actually released! One of the NUMBER ONE factors that is holding back non windows platforms is that they cant run windows applications; therefore more than 50% of the commercial software on the market is unusable to them. Of course, open source software projects are everywhere, and there ARE alternatives to windows based programs, but the average consumer doesn't know that! If the windows code is released, then competing platforms will be able to incorporate windows emulators into their source so that they can run windows based apps for the average joe until more programs are created based on that OS to replace their windows counterparts.&quot;

I would say that THE number one factor (there can be only one) holding back other OSes is not interoperability but ubiquity. Do you know where you can get a copy of BeOS? How about Windows? It's the Mom-and-Pop's vs. Wal-Mart all over again. There are plenty of emulators for people on non-Windows platforms to run Windows applications. I question your figure of 50%...I'm guessing this is speculative at best. But offering the source code won't solve that problem as the majority of non-Windows OSes don't run natively on standard PCs (i.e. Solaris, AIX, OS X, etc.).

&quot;I think that it is important to remember that DESPITE that fact that MS might have helped the economy as a whole, its buisness tactics have hurt other companies, and all but killed off commercial competition.&quot;

I agree that Microsoft has hurt its competitors, but what it has done to commoditize the personal computer far outweighs any possible repercussions within the software industry. Do I think the company has a monopoly? Yes. Should it be broken up? Probably. Will it do any good? No.

And shuttling out source code to outside developers really won't result so much in an increase in the adoption of alternate OSes so much as it will in the appearance of variant and potentially unstable strains of the Windows operating system. And Windows is already unstable enough.
&quot;One fish, two fish,

Red fish, blue fish.&quot;

 

[Alt255]

Taken as presented. What do you think about Bill? This forum was created to discuss the man, not the economics.

Alt255@Vorpalcom.Intranets.com
Klatu barada nikto, y'all.
​

 

[PhiloVance]

Hey, in response to the Dr. Suess reference may I offer one of my own?

No matter, I will!

Linux is from Mars
Windows is from Earth



Now about Bill

Probably the smartest geek, in a business sense, to come along in a long time. Don't know if Ross Perot was a geek, but if so, he's a distant second.

s-)
PhiloVance
Other hobbies, interests: Travel, Model RR (HO Gauge), Genealogy.

 

[gunthnp]

what we know of bill come from microsoft i don't think us being so far removed from the man that we can seprate them we know bill by his actions and the only action of his we know is how he ran microsoft. So long and thanks for all the fish.

 

[jwilder]

Commensing with depositing my $.02........

------------------------------------------------------

First, I find it very hard to put a degree of separation between Bill Gates and Microsoft. Without knowing the guy or the inner workings of Microsoft, I see him as being the brain behind what Microsoft has been and will be. Bill has continued to remain at the forefront of the system and programming technology sector for a very long time, blazing a path in his battleship - 'Microsoft'.

Second, I think the affect of the DOJ on Microsoft will be beneficial in various ways. The first of these being that prices will drop for the end consumer. The exorbitant growth of Microsoft is due in large part to Bill Gate's genius. Bill Gates created the idea and template, perhaps not original, but he brought it all into a form that Joe Clueless could use. His genius created something that everyone 'loved' and it consumed the market. Not necessarily because it was the ONLY thing on the market, but because it was the simplest/easiest/friendliest thing on the market. Joe Clueless felt he could take it and work with it and not have to hire a $135 per hour consultant to get it working.

Now, this unfortunately also meant that with such commanding control over the market, Microsoft / Bill Gates could continue to push the envelope in pricing so that they could sell as much as possible with the biggest profit margin possible. The action being taken by the DOJ (in my opinion) will force a couple things to begin with. First, Bill Gates will have to pull his battleship into high gear to forge ahead in a what will be a much more competitive industry. Second, prices will hopefully be more reasonable.

The money of the entire situation is all a matter of perspective. Bill Gates (Microsoft) got rich for what he accomplished. Investors got rich in buying stock. But the end user (ME) got stuck breaking the bank in order to have the software that would keep me proficient in the industry I have chosen to work. Had I decided to ditch computers and become a labor, I wouldn't care.

----------------------------------------------------------

......deposit complete. Jason Wilder
IT/CAD Manager

 

[gunthnp]

I agree with roverfish microsoft is not an all bad company we can thank them for the unfication of the indusrty. I recall the time when any Progarm would have to be writen for 15 or more system types I mean apple had the II series and the Mac, TANDY had some that worked with the IBM pc and some that did not, ATrai was off doing it thing, and then we also had commodorr which had at lest three types that it of computer out at the same time, this was a bad time. but we had tons of new ideas ane things and how programs worked it chaged all the time we need this again one system but with the gorth of the year before. There has not been any thing realy new in six years at lest and I think it is microsoft that slowed thing down. If microsoft took a back seat a million new companys would take it places with a million new ideas.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

 

[JAXDBase]

Folks,
Regardless of what arguments are exchanged as to the merits/demerits of MS vs opensource code and breaking up MS, there are still intellectual property rights and work and profit. Judges will usually choose the side of the owner of a property whether it be tangible(car, house, meat) or not (as in intellectual or a service). In the same way that you cannot force a hooker to have sex with you without paying, you cannot force MS or Oracle to free use of their SW because they created it for sale from their own work. They deserve to get paid for their product that they intended to make money with in the same way you deserved to be paid for the work you do.

What we have here that is brewing is human envy and greed similar to the hatred that spawned Sept 11! No one forces anyone to use MS or Oracle or Borland and no one forced the evil ones to do Sept 11. But those who do use MS products like it because of what the SW does(not perfect but useable). Kinda like the simple answer to the question of whether to divorce or not - the answer is &quot;It is cheaper to keep her&quot;. If you have a beef with MS then use something not made by them or make your own.

We are still a society of open and free choices and the strong and successful will always be the target of hatred and envy of those weaker and less fortunate. But please, make your own mark by not pulling everyone else down with you. By analogy, imagine a bucket of crabs. You'll see those below trying to get out by pulling those on top to the bottom. Then everyone reacts and the whole bucket reshuffles for the next move. Life is hard and made harder with competition. But we all have to live and survive here. Do your best, live free and be happy. I know I am from my own successes. Cheers !!!

 

[oziweb]

the current programming world without Microsaoft would revert back to the days when programmers had to individually code each vdu to thier programs. That is Microsoft has given stability to the computer users world. I believe that this is a good point not a bad one.

I ran a software house back in the early days and we had several programing groups to convert our applications across machines and across operating systems. Nowadays that is not needed. Even in CPM there were many variations with sutle changes to the code needed.

As to open source - it is interesting that most of those calling for it are programmers. This I believe is more an effect of a coder wanting the world to see his code. However if that coder is building code on a custom or spec job and he thinks open source is the way to go then how does he make a living! Hopw does the company that he works for make a living.

The other problem with open source is security - ok windows has problems but they are generally fixed fast but think about it when there is a horde of coders out there that have a understanding of the insides of the OS you are running on a Company network.

Anyway what is wrong with Microsoft - sure they are big sure they have a major slice of the market - no one is stopping anyone from coming up with a new OS and the supporting software to run on it.
John