MS vs. DOJ: Microsoft rendered .. irrelevant?

MS vs. DOJ: Microsoft rendered .. irrelevant?

Post by Sundial Service » Fri, 09 Nov 2001 11:11:22



A frightening amount of the American computer industry (one of our
largest per-capita exports...) is based on the assumption that Microsoft
Windows, and Microsoft Windows _alone_, is the entire and only
boundaries of "the playing field."

For years, most of us have produced software that runs only under
Windows.  We have done so because we felt sure of a continuous and
stable market in such software.  We do not have an alternative strategy
if that assumption collapsed and took our marketplace with it.  We
assume that such a scenario is unthinkable.  Our employees pull down
$60,000+ a year salaries also on the assumption that such a scenario is
unthinkable.

But countless American industries have followed the same innocent course
as we do now.  What IF the selfsame meteor struck us?  What IF America
became a net-importer of high technology in this sector and ceased to be
the determinant of its direction?  What IF someone else manufactured
that "$3.00 pair of tennis shoes?"

Until this time, many American manufacturers have stuck with Microsoft
because there seemed to be no realistic alternative to an IBM-PC
computer running (of course...) "MS-something."  American consumers are
quite used to this scenario.  It's the path of least resistance.  But
must it always be so?  [No.]

After 3+ years, millions of dollars in legal fees, and an argument that
wound its way agonizingly all the way to the Supreme Court, American
businesses are watching Microsoft not only receive no-punishment, but a
veritable _sanction of everything they've been doing wrong.  Those
companies must now make hard decisions:  they are, after all,
international companies...

Would you buy a $200 computer that (thanks to existing Linux software)
could open your Microsoft Word documents and spreadsheets?  Such a
computer can already be produced .. and with cheap offshore
manufacturing and generous "free trade" import laws, it _could be sold
for $200.  At a profit.  

But it would not run Windows.  It would run Linux, which can be bought
with no license-fees at all, dressed up as need be (lots of programmers
out there are happy to work for a fraction of American salaries, and
they're good!!), and sold to meet the business requirement quite
handsomely, thankyew.

The Microsoft juggernaut would be .. inconsequential.  Irrelevant.  

And so, by the way, would be the American hardware manufacturing
industry and the American software industry that was foolish enough (as
most were) to put all of its eggs into Microsoft's basket.  The same
technological barriers that Microsoft encouraged, all those many years,
to preserve and protect its monopolies would be the selfsame ones that
eliminated the competitive threat from American software manufacturing
until it was hopelessly too late.

This "unfortunate" turn of events would, ironically, enrich the
shareholders of the very-American companies who, like so many other
very-American companies before them, "benefited from favorable
manufacturing and R&D environments overseas."  The stockholders would be
very proud.

If American anti-trust law "actually doesn't mean a darned thing," as it
would certainly seem to, then this is an entirely logical and
predictable course of events.

After all, it happened to sneakers.

 
 
 

MS vs. DOJ: Microsoft rendered .. irrelevant?

Post by mmn.. » Fri, 09 Nov 2001 15:08:43



> And so, by the way, would be the American hardware manufacturing
> industry and the American software industry that was foolish enough (as
> most were) to put all of its eggs into Microsoft's basket.

Whoa!  Are you asserting that there is a (North) American hardware
manufacturing industry?  I recall having a US Robotics modem with
a Canadian flag on the board about 5 years ago, but that was it.

As for foreign competition driving out Windows, I don't think
lower-paid programmers are any practical advantage for products
whose development costs are shared by so many consumers.  In other
words I don't think the selling price of MS office has anything to
do with the amount of money paid to the programmers who wrote it.
Same for Internet Explorer.  Same for video games, since
some have budgets 10x others, yet they all sell for about the
same price.

Nike can't afford to pay Americans to manufacture shoes becuase
every pair must be manufactured individually.  If they could
sell the same pair of shoes a million times over like Microsoft
can, it would hardly matter whether that pair cost $3 or $20
to make.

But by far most software projects are not among the top-ten
bestsellers at Wal-Mart.  They don't pay off nearly so handsomely,
and in those cases we may really have a fearsome competitor in,
say, India.  Those of my college professors who said anything
about it simply took it for granted that most programming would
be done outside the US sometime soon.  I'm not so sure, because
so much software is developed in close support of other business
that may be more sensitive to physical locality.  The only way
to "export" service-sector jobs is immigration - instead of
exporting the jobs, we import the workforce, which works out
somewhat the same.

 
 
 

MS vs. DOJ: Microsoft rendered .. irrelevant?

Post by Rex Ballar » Fri, 09 Nov 2001 15:53:26


Yummy Wintroll.

Sundial Services wrote:

> A frightening amount of the American
> computer industry (one of our
> largest per-capita exports...) is based
> on the assumption that Microsoft
> Windows, and Microsoft Windows _alone_, is the entire and only
> boundaries of "the playing field."

No, only the PC industry is based on that assumption.
Most of the server capacity, most of the routers, firewalls,
telecommunications switches, network monitoring systems,
and "infrastructure", including web servers, application
servers, and e-commerce servers are actually based on UNIX,
upon which Linux was based.

The main reason you don't see UNIX on everybody's desk is
that, until 1993, you couldn't get an inexpensive version
of UNIX that would be fully functional and yet still be
available at reasonable cost.

The SLS release of Linux changed all that, and Microsoft knew
that eventually, Linux would become Microsoft's largest
competitor.  After all, if SLS Linux, one of the first
commercial releases, could emulate a $20,000 workstation
for less than $1000, it wouldn't take long for Microsoft to
loose control.

What was notable was Microsoft's solution to the problem.
They used a series of exclusionary contract clauses, all in
the name of piracy prevention, brand protection, and trade
secrets, to not only exclude Linux from the distribution
channels, but also from press coverage, from corporate users,
from hardware drivers, even from intellectual property that
WASN'T produced by Microsoft, such as D-CSS, USB, and PCI.

If you wanted Microsoft's endorsement, you had to sign
contracts that excluded Linux.  If you wanted their ads,
you had to stop praising Linux, if you wanted discounts
on licenses, you had to forbid Linux, if you wanted
anything from Microsoft, you had to exclude Linux.

> For years, most of us have produced
> software that runs only under
> Windows.  We have done so because
> we felt sure of a continuous and
> stable market in such software.

  We do not have an alternative strategy

> if that assumption collapsed and
> took our marketplace with it.  We
> assume that such a scenario is unthinkable.

Consider the reality of the situation though.  The myth
of the "Software Cornicopia", software that is written
once, requires no fixes, no upgrades, no customization,
and continues to sell millions and millions of copies,
year after year, without even the reqirement of a phone
call, is just a myth.  It doesn't exist.

Microsoft lured programmers, including many adventurous
companies, into believing in the myth, to get them to
provide research, development, implementation, customer
support, marketing, and otherwise promote their software,
FOR THE WINDOWS PLATFORM.

In the end, nearly every company that fell for that con
is either substantially owned by Microsoft, has been
cloned by Microsoft, or has been purchased/merged out
of existence.

Those who crossed Microsoft are worth even less.

It's no different that the "cowboy" or "miner" who has
a map to the lost dutchman's gold mine.  You buy food,
clothing, shelter, equipment, transportation, and resources,
and just as you reach the location where the mine is supposed
to be, you are robbed of everything, and left to die of
dehydration in the desert.

The Lost Dutchman, El Dorado, Blackbeard's Treasure, the
spanish Galeon filled with gold bars, the lost city of
Atlantis, and hundreds of other "Lost Treasures worth
unimaginable wealth" are nothing less than a con that
probably went back to "King Solomon's Mines" or the Pharoh's
tombs.  Long after the loot had been plundered, the value
of the "lost treasure scam" has persisted, probably for
over 6000 years.

Microsoft has played it more successfully, more flamboyantly,
more successfully, and more flagrantly, than any other player
in the last 1000 years.  But it is a 6,000 year old con.

Ultimately, you must always either aquire more research, by
stealing it from others, or convince your mark that what you
have is new and different, even when it isn't.  You can put
a new face on it, high behind faster hardware, or even add
new "eye candy" intended to impress.  It's like the prostitute
in the short skirt, high heels, black leather, satin, and
looking like the lover you've always wanted to have.  When
all she wants is the $200 you have stuffed in your pocket,
preferably with as little effort as possible.

>  Our employees pull down
> $60,000+ a year salaries also on the
> assumption that such a scenario is
> unthinkable.

That's sad.  They could probably make that same $60,000
a year custom fitting software for corporate customers.
Each company is radically different, and yet they need
the ability to share information that can be understood
by everyone.

When you keep the communications channel a "trade secret",
it's much harder to communicate, to get agreement.  This
is why TCP/IP, which is actually an inferior protocol,
was able to reach nearly 1/2 billion people, while ISO/OSI
was barely able to get the agreement of it's member vendors.

> But countless American industries have
> followed the same innocent course
> as we do now.

Yup.  If you made buggywhips as the Model T Fords rolled
off the line, you were likely to have a short career.
But if you were to become a mechanic, you're earning power
quickly increased.

>  What IF the selfsame
> meteor struck us?  What IF America
> became a net-importer of high technology
> in this sector and ceased to be
> the determinant of its direction?
>  What IF someone else manufactured
> that "$3.00 pair of tennis shoes?"

Perhaps you have been in a coma for the last 15 years.
The first company to come out with a functional version
of Microsoft Windows was NEC!  The drives are made in
asia, the boards are made in asia, the chips are made
in latin america, the circuit cards are put together
in the U.S.A, usually by immigrants, so that it can be
marketed by companies listed on the NASDAQ, as
an "American" product.  Your clothes, your Car, your
appliances, and most of your other routinely purchased
items were made the same way.

You seem to thing that Americans should somehow all
be millionaires, doing unskilled labor, to manufacture
goods, to "Save American Jobs".  The rest of the world
should "starve to death", perhaps will drop enough to
feed 10% of the population and let the other 90% die
of starvation?  Is that what you propose?

Just a suggestion, but what if you had a country like
America, who is capable of producing enough food, and
processing it so that it can be stored and served safely,
to feed nearly everybody, and let them buy manufactured
goods from countries where their primary resources are
unskilled but trainable labor, and perhaps sand, and heat.
They can make your glasses, your bottles, your "everyday
dishes".  The country who seems to have a talent for spinning
fine yarn, and weaving fine fabrics, could make you cloth
for your clothes.  And those people who make the $3.00 shoes,
make $100 a year where rent is $5/month, and a pound of rice
is 5 cents.

But if you purchase those shoes, and you add some services,
such as letting grandma hand-paint those shoes, you can sell
those sneakers for $100.  Enough to feed her whole family
(children and grandchildren) for a month, on packaged food
made in America, with the exchanged value being sufficient
to assure that Grandma get's a month's worth of food, and
the Hip-Hop get's a nice pair of shoes.

> Until this time, many American manufacturers
> have stuck with Microsoft
> because there seemed to be no
> realistic alternative to an IBM-PC
> computer running (of course...)
> "MS-something."

Bill Gates puts it nicely  "you have Microsoft, or a box with
pretty blinking lights" (referring to the Altair 8800).

>  American consumers are
> quite used to this scenario.
>  It's the path of least resistance.
>  But must it always be so?  [No.]

> After 3+ years, millions of dollars in legal fees,
> and an argument that wound its way agonizingly
> all the way to the Supreme Court, American
> businesses are watching Microsoft not only
> receive no-punishment, but a veritable _sanction
> of everything they've been doing wrong.

Unfortunately, if this is the perception, how history
will remember it, how our children will remember it,
then there will be no law.  The Judges say "Guilty",
but the DA lets the rich man walk, and sends to poor
kid away for 20-life.

Microsoft trashes millions of computers with it's malicious
software, and isn't even prosecuted.  Demetri Sylarov
creates software to read e-books to the blind and faces
Life in prison as a cyber terrorist.

When the law becomes unjust, it is no longer the law.
When the lawful become unjust, the victim turn to the
lawless.  The gangs of the big cities thrive, because
the police are abusive, or indifferent.  You call to
report a crime, and officer starts searching your house
without a warrant, to prosecute you - because you are
a trouble maker.

Linux thrived, not because everyone was so philantropic
and altruistic that they just wanted to give away billions
of dollars worth of software.  Linux thrived because
the only way to compete with Microsoft was to give away
enough infrastructure to get the agreement of vendors
who were previously lured into Microsoft's "el-dorado" con.

>  Those companies must now make hard decisions:
>  they are, after all, international companies...

They are working in a different paradigm.  They can continue
to "follow the woman with the short skirt" (whose boyfriend
is waiting in the closet with a baseball bat), or they can
start to look for an opportunity to get some real leverage.

Keep in mind that you don't have to exclude Microsoft.  In fact,
you can use Cygwin and Xfree, and other common technologies
to create goodies for Linux AND Windows.

If you want to stick with Windows APIs, then simply start
testing your products under WINE.  If things don't work right,
you can either adjust your product, or adjust WINE.

> Would you buy a

...

read more »

  rballard.vcf
< 1K Download
 
 
 

MS vs. DOJ: Microsoft rendered .. irrelevant?

Post by Nils Stuar » Fri, 09 Nov 2001 23:30:51


you are wrong
Coherent from Paul Mason was available with the 386 processor for 99 dollars
1986 or so
It's major competition at that time was win/386 (win2.0) and OS/2 1.1 and
DOS
Market didn't accept it for the same reasons linux is a hard sell with out a
pretty interface......No apps Hard to use

Microsoft's inovation was to get the IHM's to write drivers for windows
against a common api (they paid alot in the beginning)

Software developers were "lured" due to an active Developer Relationship
program that was much lower in cost and of higher quality than the others
from IBM, SUN, DEC. Bill got it right from the start on that one
Still "only" costs 2k/year for everything except source
And no don't bother to compare to the zillion contradictory refs for linux
Not hard to search 2 DVD discs and the app library from MSFT and supliment
that resource with the online content.

Even with my MONO box, I'll still do the bulk of my paying  work on a
NT2000AS .NET platform


> Yummy Wintroll.


> > A frightening amount of the American
> > computer industry (one of our
> > largest per-capita exports...) is based
> > on the assumption that Microsoft
> > Windows, and Microsoft Windows _alone_, is the entire and only
> > boundaries of "the playing field."

> No, only the PC industry is based on that assumption.
> Most of the server capacity, most of the routers, firewalls,
> telecommunications switches, network monitoring systems,
> and "infrastructure", including web servers, application
> servers, and e-commerce servers are actually based on UNIX,
> upon which Linux was based.

> The main reason you don't see UNIX on everybody's desk is
> that, until 1993, you couldn't get an inexpensive version
> of UNIX that would be fully functional and yet still be
> available at reasonable cost.

> The SLS release of Linux changed all that, and Microsoft knew
> that eventually, Linux would become Microsoft's largest
> competitor.  After all, if SLS Linux, one of the first
> commercial releases, could emulate a $20,000 workstation
> for less than $1000, it wouldn't take long for Microsoft to
> loose control.

> What was notable was Microsoft's solution to the problem.
> They used a series of exclusionary contract clauses, all in
> the name of piracy prevention, brand protection, and trade
> secrets, to not only exclude Linux from the distribution
> channels, but also from press coverage, from corporate users,
> from hardware drivers, even from intellectual property that
> WASN'T produced by Microsoft, such as D-CSS, USB, and PCI.

<drivel dump>
> --
> Rex Ballard
> IT Architect
> Leader in commercial use of the Internet and Open Source.
> http://www.open4success.com

 
 
 

MS vs. DOJ: Microsoft rendered .. irrelevant?

Post by Rex Ballar » Sat, 10 Nov 2001 12:41:19



> you are wrong
> Coherent from Paul Mason was available with
> the 386 processor for 99 dollars 1986 or so

Actually, quite a bit later.  Coherent came out commercially
in about 1992, and did moderately well until SLS in 1993.

It was actually based on on Minix, and ran in either 8086
"real"
mode, or 80286 "protected" mode.  As of mid 1993, it still
didn't
support linear addressing or the 80386 MMU.

Quote:> It's major competition at that time was
> win/386 (win2.0) and OS/2 1.1 and DOS

Actually, coherent had competitoon from Windows 3.0 and 3.1 and
from
OS/2 1.2 and 2.0.  Many users still used dos, and many were
considering
some version of UNIX for Intel, but Coherant wasn't really a
competitor.

Quote:> Market didn't accept it for the same reasons linux is a hard sell with out a
> pretty interface......No apps Hard to use

What made matters worse was that Coherant only supported 64k
processes (the kernel used
the segmentation pointers for context switches).  Since a
640x480x256 color screen
was already 300 K, you had a little problem.  A 1024x768x32bit
display was completely
out of the question.  I do remember somebody trying to create
an X11 server for coherent,
but I don't think they ever got it into a useful form.

I originally qualified my statement as saying:

Quote:> > The main reason you don't see UNIX on everybody's desk is
> > that, until 1993, you couldn't get an inexpensive version
> > of UNIX that would be fully functional and yet still be
> > available at reasonable cost.

Coherant was not fully functional (X11, TCP/IP, NFS, all the
goodies),
but it was sold at a reasonable cost ($99).  I did do an
evaluation
of Coherant at about the same time linux came out.  I also
tried to
do an evaluation of BSD4.4, but the freeBSD project hadn't
really been
formed yet, let alone come out with the full freeBSD release.
Had they
been a few months earlier, they might have blown Linux away.
As it is,
FreeBSD is very popular in the Server market.  When you combine
the
BSD variants, and Linux, you have nearly 1/2 the server market
in the
Web Server market.  Windows has almost 1/2, but you need more
NT machines
to do the same functionality (more redundancy required).

Quote:> Microsoft's inovation was to get the IHM's to write drivers for windows
> against a common api (they paid alot in the beginning)

Yes.  That was a big step forward, and it really took off in
Windodows 3.1.
Sun tried a similar approach, but still stayed with the notion
of relinking
the kernel for the desired drivers.  It was just too expensive
to keep relinking.

Quote:> Software developers were "lured" due to an active Developer Relationship
> program that was much lower in cost and of higher quality than the others
> from IBM, SUN, DEC.

That, and the fact that Microsoft was selling nearly 100
million PCs/year on
it's DOS and Windows 3.x platform.  To make sure that none of
them defected,
they had to sign nondisclosure agreements.  This was supposedly
to prevent
OEMs from stealing the API source code and writing their own
operating system,
but Microsoft later used it to keep IHMs or IHVs from writing
drivers for
other operating systems such as OS/2, Xenix, UNIX, or Linux.

Quote:> Bill got it right from the start on that one
> Still "only" costs 2k/year for everything except source
> And no don't bother to compare to the zillion contradictory refs for linux
> Not hard to search 2 DVD discs and the app library from MSFT and supliment
> that resource with the online content.

This would indicate that you are an MSDN subscriber, with
Enterprise edition
rights, paid for with either your employer's money (assuming
you work for
a corporation), and 1/2 with tax payer dollars (assuming that
this is deducted
as a business expense).

Quote:> Even with my MONO box, I'll still do the bulk of my paying  work on a
> NT2000AS .NET platform

That is certainly your choice.

All we are advocating is that we be given the opportunity to
make our
choice (to use Linux), without contractrual arm-twisting by
Microsoft.

[snip]

Quote:> > The main reason you don't see UNIX on everybody's desk is
> > that, until 1993, you couldn't get an inexpensive version
> > of UNIX that would be fully functional and yet still be
> > available at reasonable cost.

> > The SLS release of Linux changed all that, and Microsoft knew
> > that eventually, Linux would become Microsoft's largest
> > competitor.  After all, if SLS Linux, one of the first
> > commercial releases, could emulate a $20,000 workstation
> > for less than $1000, it wouldn't take long for Microsoft to
> > loose control.

> > What was notable was Microsoft's solution to the problem.
> > They used a series of exclusionary contract clauses, all in
> > the name of piracy prevention, brand protection, and trade
> > secrets, to not only exclude Linux from the distribution
> > channels, but also from press coverage, from corporate users,
> > from hardware drivers, even from intellectual property that
> > WASN'T produced by Microsoft, such as DVD, USB, and PCI.

[snip]

--
Rex Ballard
IT Architect
Leader in commercial use of the Internet and Open Source.
http://www.open4success.com

  rballard.vcf
< 1K Download
 
 
 

MS vs. DOJ: Microsoft rendered .. irrelevant?

Post by Grant Edwar » Sat, 10 Nov 2001 16:38:06



>> you are wrong Coherent from Paul Mason was available with the
>> 386 processor for 99 dollars 1986 or so

> Actually, quite a bit later.  Coherent came out commercially
> in about 1992,

http://www.uni-giessen.de/faq/archiv/coherent-faq.general/msg00000.html

According to the Coherent FAQ It came out in 1990.  I'd already
been using it for a year or so by the spring of '91. By then I
had ported RCS, written a pty driver, ported screen, and done
some work on the Hercules driver for the MGR window system.  

The RFC for the Coherent newsgroup was posting in January of
91, and that was some time after I bought a copy of version
3.something.

Quote:> and did moderately well until SLS in 1993.

> It was actually based on on Minix, and ran in either 8086
> "real" mode, or 80286 "protected" mode.

I don't remember any "real" mode ever being available. The
first version I bought was '286 protected mode (64K data, 64K
text for each process).

Quote:> As of mid 1993, it still didn't support linear addressing or
> the 80386 MMU.

Version 4.0 (linear 386 and MMU support) was announced in May
92.  A year later, 4.2 came out with X11.  There were numerous
delays in the ship-date for 4.2, and a lot of customers (myself
included) switched to Linux (though Linux/emacs/gcc/X11 with 4M
of RAM on a Hercules mono graphics board wasn't anything to be
to happy about).

Version 4.2 actually ran some SCO apps right out of the box,
but it was too late.

Quote:> What made matters worse was that Coherant only supported 64k
> processes (the kernel used the segmentation pointers for
> context switches).  Since a 640x480x256 color screen was
> already 300 K, you had a little problem.  A 1024x768x32bit
> display was completely out of the question.  I do remember
> somebody trying to create an X11 server for coherent, but I
> don't think they ever got it into a useful form.

[...]

Quote:> Coherant was not fully functional

It was certainly fully functional compared to other v7
implimentations that ran in 1M of RAM and 20M of disk space. It
came with a good C compiler (K&R), uucp worked well, had
virtual consoles, and I even had screen working at one point
(all on a '286).

It couldn't compete with SunOS or BSD though, since the lack of
TCP/IP was a killer.

Quote:> (X11, TCP/IP, NFS, all the goodies)

The rest of the "goodies" were being worked on.  486 flat
addressing mode and X11 had shipped before Linux killed off MWC
in 95.  I don't remember if TCP/IP ever shipped.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  An Italian is COMBING
                                  at               his hair in suburban DES
                               visi.com            MOINES!

 
 
 

MS vs. DOJ: Microsoft rendered .. irrelevant?

Post by Nils Stuar » Sat, 10 Nov 2001 23:53:04


I stand corrected I checked the box and the date is 1990
Version I started with at KAPL Knolls Atomic Power Lab
we were investigating writing simulations and it wasn't up to the task
Scarry thing we delivered an app based on DB3 with a turbo pascal front end
running on a dell 386

I remember the driver projects at the time for NT. Microsoft and
 DEC paid most of the freight, the exclusion was base on that. IE., we'll
only pay if you only work on our stuff. General Physics though it was a
great deal, so did the developers as we were no longer "overhead" buy a
profit center with the associated perks and raises.
I started getting MSDN when it was offered on my own nickel, but yes  the
gov does kick in 36%, same as for my other tools. I buy 5 licenses for my
company so that our developers have access to it and I do write it off. I
keep it out of the company's control as I've had too many bad experiences
with gate keeping morons. Base on my income the  .5% MSFT tax has been
cheap, and has been effective in keeping the junior developers happy. In
philly it cost about 10k to find a replacement so I pay alittle better than
average and give them the tools they want /need. My CEO agrees and we budget
6k/head for "retention programs"
MSDN+ new bx +cable modem/yr

Perhaps that is the basis for our real disagreement, I've had a long, happy,
profitable relationship with microsoft since the PDS7 and C4 days so how
they hammer the "compityfull" has always worked to my benefit... as long as
I pay attention and get on the curve at the right time and don't follow
blatantly silly ideas, I do fine.
Nothing in linux land is close.

I really want the MONO folks to succeed, because the expertise to write good
reliable stuff is there and it will enhance the value of my decision to have
our developers work with .NET
Amazing how much of our current code was dedicated to managing problems.
that in .NET doesn't exist.
If micosofts JDBC to sql server works ok and I can link the services, I can
see using Linux w/MONO on the front ends to save on the NTS licenses  I use
dell 2450's from dot bomb land that are only 2k a pop or so. Cutting out an
NT lic has some appeal, but rewriting the code is way more expensive than a
few more NT boxes, till I fill all 42U in the rack anyway

Quote:> choice (to use Linux), without contractrual arm-twisting by
> Microsoft.

One man's arm twisting is another's good negotiation
The last ISP our site was at blew thier relationship with me. The 600/mo
hosting fee + 1000 to dump them was big to them, small to me so I pulled a
"microsoft" and dumped them for A full rack and full t-1 in a great Co-Lo
for 900/mo.

Loads of cap available so it's easy to pound down the rates (they waived
their set-up fee so it only cost 100$ to switch co-lo's on a day's notice)
Our old ISP hates me, the new one loves me (4th full rack I've got with
them)
I'll target the old ISP's biz and swipe a few more sites just to let then
know I'm really PO'd, I can kill thier Biz if they remain stupid.. kind of
my take on the MSFT monopoly... stay stupid and we will kill you, get smart
and we'll work with you and reserve killing you for a later time. OEM's got
huge discounts on Windows as long as the took the terms (25$ a copy for
1mill copies+ office for 40$).
They could have paid retail, but excluding other platforms for margin worked
for them and helped thier bottom line.

Nils Stuart
CTO
Buyfigure.com

> As it is,
> FreeBSD is very popular in the Server market.  When you combine
> the
> BSD variants, and Linux, you have nearly 1/2 the server market
> in the
> Web Server market.  Windows has almost 1/2, but you need more
> NT machines
> to do the same functionality (more redundancy required).

> > Microsoft's inovation was to get the IHM's to write drivers for windows
> > against a common api (they paid alot in the beginning)

> Yes.  That was a big step forward, and it really took off in
> Windodows 3.1.
> Sun tried a similar approach, but still stayed with the notion
> of relinking
> the kernel for the desired drivers.  It was just too expensive
> to keep relinking.

> > Software developers were "lured" due to an active Developer Relationship
> > program that was much lower in cost and of higher quality than the
others
> > from IBM, SUN, DEC.

> That, and the fact that Microsoft was selling nearly 100
> million PCs/year on
> it's DOS and Windows 3.x platform.  To make sure that none of
> them defected,
> they had to sign nondisclosure agreements.  This was supposedly
> to prevent
> OEMs from stealing the API source code and writing their own
> operating system,
> but Microsoft later used it to keep IHMs or IHVs from writing
> drivers for
> other operating systems such as OS/2, Xenix, UNIX, or Linux.

> > Bill got it right from the start on that one
> > Still "only" costs 2k/year for everything except source
> > And no don't bother to compare to the zillion contradictory refs for
linux
> > Not hard to search 2 DVD discs and the app library from MSFT and
supliment
> > that resource with the online content.

> This would indicate that you are an MSDN subscriber, with
> Enterprise edition
> rights, paid for with either your employer's money (assuming
> you work for
> a corporation), and 1/2 with tax payer dollars (assuming that
> this is deducted
> as a business expense).

> > Even with my MONO box, I'll still do the bulk of my paying  work on a
> > NT2000AS .NET platform

> That is certainly your choice.

> All we are advocating is that we be given the opportunity to
> make our



> [snip]
> > > The main reason you don't see UNIX on everybody's desk is
> > > that, until 1993, you couldn't get an inexpensive version
> > > of UNIX that would be fully functional and yet still be
> > > available at reasonable cost.

> > > The SLS release of Linux changed all that, and Microsoft knew
> > > that eventually, Linux would become Microsoft's largest
> > > competitor.  After all, if SLS Linux, one of the first
> > > commercial releases, could emulate a $20,000 workstation
> > > for less than $1000, it wouldn't take long for Microsoft to
> > > loose control.

> > > What was notable was Microsoft's solution to the problem.
> > > They used a series of exclusionary contract clauses, all in
> > > the name of piracy prevention, brand protection, and trade
> > > secrets, to not only exclude Linux from the distribution
> > > channels, but also from press coverage, from corporate users,
> > > from hardware drivers, even from intellectual property that
> > > WASN'T produced by Microsoft, such as DVD, USB, and PCI.

> [snip]

> --
> Rex Ballard
> IT Architect
> Leader in commercial use of the Internet and Open Source.
> http://www.open4success.com

 
 
 

MS vs. DOJ: Microsoft rendered .. irrelevant?

Post by fred smit » Sat, 10 Nov 2001 21:07:06


:>
:> you are wrong
:> Coherent from Paul Mason was available with

Who in the world is Paul Mason? Coherent was a product of Mark Williams
Company.

:> the 386 processor for 99 dollars 1986 or so

: Actually, quite a bit later.  Coherent came out commercially
: in about 1992, and did moderately well until SLS in 1993.

The 386 version came out in '92. The '286 version came out considerably
earlier. I recall hearing of it in '89, though it may not have been new
even then. I've seen (may even have here somewhere) a magazine review
from '83 or '84 of a version for PC/XT platform.

: It was actually based on on Minix, and ran in either 8086

'Scuse me? Based on Minix? I don't think so!!!

: "real"
: mode, or 80286 "protected" mode.  As of mid 1993, it still
: didn't
: support linear addressing or the 80386 MMU.

Er, maybe we're not thinking of the same thing, but the 386 version
supported a flat address space on the 386 (and greater) platform.
however since it didn't do a 'bounce-buffer' thingie, it couldn't
support >16Mb RAM.

<snip>
:> Market didn't accept it for the same reasons linux is a hard sell with out a
:> pretty interface......No apps Hard to use

: What made matters worse was that Coherant only supported 64k
: processes (the kernel used

You're speaking of the '286 version, not the 386 version!

: the segmentation pointers for context switches).  Since a
: 640x480x256 color screen
: was already 300 K, you had a little problem.  A 1024x768x32bit
: display was completely
: out of the question.  I do remember somebody trying to create
: an X11 server for coherent,
: but I don't think they ever got it into a useful form.

I have a copy of it though I've never run it. I know people who did.
Apparently it was functional.

<snip>

--

  "For him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his
 glorious presence without fault and with great joy--to the only God our Savior
 be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before
                     all ages, now and forevermore! Amen."
----------------------------- Jude 1:24,25 (niv) -----------------------------

 
 
 

MS vs. DOJ: Microsoft rendered .. irrelevant?

Post by Lee Sau Da » Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:39:22


    fred> The 386 version came out in '92.

I think I saw them around in 1991.  So, they were out earlier.  When I
bought a PC  in 1993, I choose  486 on VL bus because  Pentium or PCI,
which were  options for  me, were much  more expensive.  So,  I'm sure
Pentium 33 and 66 were out in 1993.  486 was already something old one
or  two year old  then, and  hence I  could get  one for  a reasonable
price.  So, the 386 should have come out in around 1991.

    fred> The '286 version came out considerably earlier.

Yeah, but had remained expensive for some time.

    fred> I recall hearing of it in '89,

I knew about it around that time, but it was not a new thing then.

--


Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee

 
 
 

MS vs. DOJ: Microsoft rendered .. irrelevant?

Post by Stephen How » Fri, 16 Nov 2001 22:31:50





>     fred> The 386 version came out in '92.

No it did not. The First 386DX came out on October 17th 1985. Yes, that far
back  16Mhz.
The first PC that had it in was Compaq DeskPro
Later IBM released the PS2 Model 80, part of its MicroChannel Architecture
machines in 1987 - models 30, 50, 60 and 80.
I remember Byte magazine announcing 20Mhz and 25Mhz versions of the 386
It was a long while before Microsoft caught up with a version of Windows
(3.0) in May 1990 that used the 386 to the full (virtual memory paging),
Windows /386 in December 1987 did not.

Quote:> So,  I'm sure
> Pentium 33

There was never a Pentium 33.
The first Pentiums were 60Mhz and 66Mhz, the former based on 5V technology
the latter on 3.3V. You got the year right.

Stephen Howe

 
 
 

MS vs. DOJ: Microsoft rendered .. irrelevant?

Post by Jim LasCo » Sat, 17 Nov 2001 09:53:06






> >     fred> The 386 version came out in '92.

> No it did not. The First 386DX came out on October 17th 1985. Yes, that far
> back  16Mhz.
> The first PC that had it in was Compaq DeskPro
> Later IBM released the PS2 Model 80, part of its MicroChannel Architecture
> machines in 1987 - models 30, 50, 60 and 80.
> I remember Byte magazine announcing 20Mhz and 25Mhz versions of the 386
> It was a long while before Microsoft caught up with a version of Windows
> (3.0) in May 1990 that used the 386 to the full (virtual memory paging),
> Windows /386 in December 1987 did not.

> > So,  I'm sure
> > Pentium 33

> There was never a Pentium 33.
> The first Pentiums were 60Mhz and 66Mhz, the former based on 5V technology
> the latter on 3.3V. You got the year right.

> Stephen Howe

And the first 60's had a Math integer problem which almost wiped Intel out LOL
 
 
 

MS vs. DOJ: Microsoft rendered .. irrelevant?

Post by Mike » Sat, 17 Nov 2001 15:23:32



Quote:

> ...the first [Pentium] 60's had a Math integer problem which almost wiped

Intel out LOL

Ahem. They had a problem that many people thought would be a severe problem
for Intel, but which in the end had no significant impact on the company.

-- Mike --

 
 
 

MS vs. DOJ: Microsoft rendered .. irrelevant?

Post by fred smit » Sat, 17 Nov 2001 19:55:25






:> >
:> >     fred> The 386 version came out in '92.
:>
:> No it did not. The First 386DX came out on October 17th 1985. Yes, that far
:> back  16Mhz.

We were talking about the OS named COHERENT. The 386 version of Coherent
came out in '92. We were NOT talking about when the 386 PROCESSOR came out.

Fred
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 .----    Fred Smith    /                                                      
( /__  ,__.   __   __ /  __   : /                                              

/    /  (__ (___ (__(_ (___ / :__                                 781-438-5471
-------------------------------- Jude 1:24,25 ---------------------------------

 
 
 

MS vs. DOJ: Microsoft rendered .. irrelevant?

Post by Garglemonste » Sun, 18 Nov 2001 14:55:21


    drsquare> On 15 Nov 2001 08:39:22 +0100, in
    drsquare> comp.os.linux.advocacy,


    >>>>>>> writes:
    >>
    fred> The 386 version came out in '92.

    drsquare> Lee, can you stop quoting like that? It completely
    drsquare> messes up the quoting highlighting, and is awkward to
    drsquare> read. The standard system of putting >'s before each
    drsquare> line of a quoted message makes much more sense.

looks fine here.  perhaps you should try upgrading to gnus.

ciao,

g.m.

--

Yow!  It's some people inside the wall!  This is better than mopping!