home backlash for Microsoft -- NEWSFACTOR.com

home backlash for Microsoft -- NEWSFACTOR.com

Post by Daero » Thu, 15 May 2003 18:48:57



http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/21511.html
REPORT: MORE SEEK MICROSOFT ALTERNATIVES
Keith Regan  --  May 14, 2003

Gartner said agencies and businesses seeking Microsoft alternatives
are most likely to turn to Linux and open-source integration options,
citing low initial setup costs and potential advantages in the
security arena.
---

Microsoft faces a backlash even at home,, where the company's runaway
success has created pockets of resentment among hardware makers and
software firms that find themselves forced to make Windows- compatible
products, according to Gartner analyst Robin Simpson.
---

Microsoft could not immediately be reached for comment.

Gartner said agencies and businesses seeking Microsoft alternatives
are most likely to turn to Linux and open-source integration options,
citing low initial setup costs and potential advantages in the
security arena.
---

 
 
 

home backlash for Microsoft -- NEWSFACTOR.com

Post by Rex Ballar » Fri, 16 May 2003 03:20:08



> http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/21511.html
> REPORT: MORE SEEK MICROSOFT ALTERNATIVES
> Keith Regan  --  May 14, 2003

> Gartner said agencies and businesses seeking Microsoft alternatives
> are most likely to turn to Linux and open-source integration options,
> citing low initial setup costs and potential advantages in the
> security arena.
> ---

> Microsoft faces a backlash even at home,, where the company's runaway
> success has created pockets of resentment among hardware makers and
> software firms that find themselves forced to make Windows- compatible
> products, according to Gartner analyst Robin Simpson.
> ---

> Microsoft could not immediately be reached for comment.

> Gartner said agencies and businesses seeking Microsoft alternatives
> are most likely to turn to Linux and open-source integration options,
> citing low initial setup costs and potential advantages in the
> security arena.
> ---

<b>
 From the same article:
Love-Hate Relationship

Forrester analyst Rob Enderle told the E-Commerce Times that
there have always been enterprises that have sought to
resist Microsoft, but most find few alternatives that are as
well developed as the software giant's products.

"The reason they got to be the biggest in the first place
was they made better products," Enderle said. "They've tried
to stay committed to development so that people won't stray
or those who do will come back over time."
</b>

In reality this is completely false.  Microsoft's products
have been inferior to competitor products for years.  When
MS-DOS was still trying to figure out TSRs (remember
those?), CP/M 86 had preemptive multitasking.  When
Microsoft was still trying to figure out overlapping
windows, UNIX was offering X11.  When Microsoft was still
trying to get Windows to run for more than 3 hours between
crashing,

The reason they got to be big was a strategy they adopted
after their first year with MITS.  Rather than leave the OEM
with the disgression of selling optional licenses.  They
made sure that every OEM included their software with every
machine the OEM produced.  When the FTC threatened to
prosecute, they settled, and got around the settlement terms
by using cliff-tiered pricing to force the OEMs to purchase
MORE licenses than they needed.  Later, they tried to force
the OEMs to include their application software (Office), and
again got around the FTC/DOJ bundling settlement by putting
all of the Libraries for Office into Windows, then went to
corporate customers and forced them to include office on
every machine sold - in exchange for "support" (which turned
out to be much less than expected).  When Linux distributors
tried to offer Linux to the OEMs, Microsoft altered the OEM
licenses to prevent them from altering the boot sequence,
preventing the installation of a boot manager to permit
dual-boot operation.

Even today, with a court ruling against it, and a settlement
which was intended to prevent Microsoft from preventing OEMs
from installing Linux, Microsoft used a clause permitting
them to compensate OEMs for development to effectively get
around the intent of the settlement by paying the OEMs
"bonuses" for "Microsoft Only" (no Linux drivers available
when the hardware is released) hardware and drivers.  As a
result, the OEMs couldn't install Linux, but Microsoft
rewared them by knocking the equivalent of 20-30% off the
license price.

Microsoft also leveraged a $4 billion/year advertizing
budget by controlling ad placement, giving them effective
control of over nearly $40 billion/year.  Microsoft used
this leverage to pressure the media industry into writing
favorable articles singing the praises of Vaporware that
didn't exist, and to discourage favorable coverage of Mac,
and UNIX, including Solaris, Interactive Unix, UnixWare, and
Linux.  When articles were written, writers were very
careful to throw in some left-handed compliments, and then
"balance" their article by pointing out minor faults as
major issues, while ignoring the advantages.

It wasn't until Red Hat Linux 4.0 won "Product of the Year"
in a dead heat tie with Windows NT 4.0 that Linux really got
any official recognition.   By Red Hat 4.2, Linux was
winning awards from many publications, and Microsoft was
scrambling to catch up.  Red Hat tried to crack the OEM
market, offering quantity prices as low as $2/copy, but the
OEMs were blocked by Microsoft's license terms, especially
with the release of Windows 98.

Red Hat focused on the server market, and very quickly Linux
machines began covertly popping into data centers all over
the world.  Eventually, when IDC began asking CIOs if they
used Linux, they investigated, and 17% found that they were
using Linux.  Many web sites were using Linux and many
hosting companies were using thousands of Linux servers.
Each area where Linux was used, it quickly established
itself as a leader in the field, outperforming even the best
competitors within the size and class being used.

Microsoft is still trying to find legal, or even illegal,
ways to keep Microsoft out of it's critical desktop market.
  They have already seen the damage Linux can due based on
their experience in the server market.  Last year, Linux and
Microsoft were running neck and neck in the server market in
terms of units deployed, and there are a few indications
that Linux is now leading the market.

Microsoft still controls the OEM distribution channel, and
allows no competitors.  When Sun tried to offer Java 2 to
the OEMS, or to encourage them to install their own
compatible Java 2 implementations, Microsoft had prevented
the OEMs from doing so.

To claim that Microsoft products were far superior to their
competitors is, at best, a subjective statement.  For most
of the last 10 years, there hasn't been much opportunity to
make comparisons.  To claim that this was the primary reason
for Microsoft's success, is just plain ignorance.

Microsoft was able to prevent IBM from shipping Warp 4 on
their own PCs, an operating system for which IBM had paid
Microsoft over $1 billion and had invested another $2
billion on their own R&D.

--
Rex Ballard
Leading Open Source Advocate
http://www.open4success.org/bio

 
 
 

home backlash for Microsoft -- NEWSFACTOR.com

Post by Simon Cook » Fri, 16 May 2003 05:36:24



> Microsoft was able to prevent IBM from shipping Warp 4 on
> their own PCs, an operating system for which IBM had paid
> Microsoft over $1 billion and had invested another $2
> billion on their own R&D.

Is this one of your posts that you spent 6 hours researching, or is it one
of the ones that people need to take with a big mountain of salt?

Just wondering.

Simon

 
 
 

home backlash for Microsoft -- NEWSFACTOR.com

Post by Pete Goodwi » Fri, 16 May 2003 13:36:15



>> http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/21511.html
>> REPORT: MORE SEEK MICROSOFT ALTERNATIVES
>> Keith Regan  --  May 14, 2003

>> Gartner said agencies and businesses seeking Microsoft alternatives
>> are most likely to turn to Linux and open-source integration options,
>> citing low initial setup costs and potential advantages in the
>> security arena.
>> ---

>> Microsoft faces a backlash even at home,, where the company's runaway
>> success has created pockets of resentment among hardware makers and
>> software firms that find themselves forced to make Windows- compatible
>> products, according to Gartner analyst Robin Simpson. ---

>> Microsoft could not immediately be reached for comment.
>> Gartner said agencies and businesses seeking Microsoft alternatives
>> are most likely to turn to Linux and open-source integration options,
>> citing low initial setup costs and potential advantages in the
>> security arena. ---

> <b>
>  From the same article:
> Love-Hate Relationship

> Forrester analyst Rob Enderle told the E-Commerce Times that there have
> always been enterprises that have sought to resist Microsoft, but most
> find few alternatives that are as well developed as the software giant's
> products.

In other words Microsoft has the products the rest don't.

Quote:> "The reason they got to be the biggest in the first place was they made
> better products," Enderle said. "They've tried to stay committed to
> development so that people won't stray or those who do will come back
> over time."
> </b>

> In reality this is completely false.  Microsoft's products have been
> inferior to competitor products for years.  When MS-DOS was still trying
> to figure out TSRs (remember those?), CP/M 86 had preemptive
> multitasking.  When Microsoft was still trying to figure out overlapping
> windows, UNIX was offering X11.  When Microsoft was still trying to get
> Windows to run for more than 3 hours between crashing,

Yet the Windows desktop is winning right now whilst Linux desktops are
still playing catchup.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:> The reason they got to be big was a strategy they adopted after their
> first year with MITS.  Rather than leave the OEM with the disgression of
> selling optional licenses.  They made sure that every OEM included their
> software with every machine the OEM produced.  When the FTC threatened
> to prosecute, they settled, and got around the settlement terms by using
> cliff-tiered pricing to force the OEMs to purchase MORE licenses than
> they needed.  Later, they tried to force the OEMs to include their
> application software (Office), and again got around the FTC/DOJ bundling
> settlement by putting all of the Libraries for Office into Windows, then
> went to corporate customers and forced them to include office on every
> machine sold - in exchange for "support" (which turned out to be much
> less than expected).  When Linux distributors tried to offer Linux to
> the OEMs, Microsoft altered the OEM licenses to prevent them from
> altering the boot sequence, preventing the installation of a boot
> manager to permit dual-boot operation.

> Even today, with a court ruling against it, and a settlement which was
> intended to prevent Microsoft from preventing OEMs from installing
> Linux, Microsoft used a clause permitting them to compensate OEMs for
> development to effectively get around the intent of the settlement by
> paying the OEMs "bonuses" for "Microsoft Only" (no Linux drivers
> available when the hardware is released) hardware and drivers.  As a
> result, the OEMs couldn't install Linux, but Microsoft rewared them by
> knocking the equivalent of 20-30% off the license price.

Which begs the question: why is it that court cases such as these just
don't seem to have the desired effect?

Quote:> Microsoft also leveraged a $4 billion/year advertizing budget by
> controlling ad placement, giving them effective control of over nearly
> $40 billion/year.  Microsoft used this leverage to pressure the media
> industry into writing favorable articles singing the praises of
> Vaporware that didn't exist, and to discourage favorable coverage of
> Mac, and UNIX, including Solaris, Interactive Unix, UnixWare, and
> Linux.  When articles were written, writers were very careful to throw
> in some left-handed compliments, and then "balance" their article by
> pointing out minor faults as major issues, while ignoring the advantages.

So all those article writers out there have been bought by Microsoft?

- Show quoted text -

Quote:> It wasn't until Red Hat Linux 4.0 won "Product of the Year" in a dead
> heat tie with Windows NT 4.0 that Linux really got any official
> recognition.   By Red Hat 4.2, Linux was winning awards from many
> publications, and Microsoft was scrambling to catch up.  Red Hat tried
> to crack the OEM market, offering quantity prices as low as $2/copy, but
> the OEMs were blocked by Microsoft's license terms, especially with the
> release of Windows 98.

> Red Hat focused on the server market, and very quickly Linux machines
> began covertly popping into data centers all over the world.  
> Eventually, when IDC began asking CIOs if they used Linux, they
> investigated, and 17% found that they were using Linux.  Many web sites
> were using Linux and many hosting companies were using thousands of
> Linux servers. Each area where Linux was used, it quickly established
> itself as a leader in the field, outperforming even the best competitors
> within the size and class being used.

The server market, I notice.

Quote:> Microsoft is still trying to find legal, or even illegal, ways to keep
> Microsoft out of it's critical desktop market.  They have already seen
> the damage Linux can due based on their experience in the server
> market.  Last year, Linux and Microsoft were running neck and neck in
> the server market in terms of units deployed, and there are a few
> indications that Linux is now leading the market.

Microsoft never did well in the server market; they do much better in
the desktop market. LGX has yet to reach a point where it can do well in
the desktop market, it still has a few hurdles to get over.

Quote:> Microsoft still controls the OEM distribution channel, and allows no
> competitors.  When Sun tried to offer Java 2 to the OEMS, or to
> encourage them to install their own compatible Java 2 implementations,
> Microsoft had prevented the OEMs from doing so.

> To claim that Microsoft products were far superior to their competitors
> is, at best, a subjective statement.  For most of the last 10 years,
> there hasn't been much opportunity to make comparisons.  To claim that
> this was the primary reason for Microsoft's success, is just plain
> ignorance.

Yet the Windows desktop market is still unbeatable by the LGX offerings!

Quote:> Microsoft was able to prevent IBM from shipping Warp 4 on their own PCs,
> an operating system for which IBM had paid Microsoft over $1 billion and
> had invested another $2 billion on their own R&D.

--
Pete Goodwin, using Mozilla 1.3.1 on Windows 2000.
http://www.kevinandkell.com/ - Herd Thinners Inc.
http://www.clanbob.net/ - Life of Riley
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/getfuzzy/index.html - Get Fuzzy
 
 
 

home backlash for Microsoft -- NEWSFACTOR.com

Post by john bai » Sat, 17 May 2003 15:11:17




> >> http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/21511.html
> >> REPORT: MORE SEEK MICROSOFT ALTERNATIVES
> >> Keith Regan  --  May 14, 2003

> >> Gartner said agencies and businesses seeking Microsoft alternatives
> >> are most likely to turn to Linux and open-source integration options,
> >> citing low initial setup costs and potential advantages in the
> >> security arena.
> >> ---

> >> Microsoft faces a backlash even at home,, where the company's runaway
> >> success has created pockets of resentment among hardware makers and
> >> software firms that find themselves forced to make Windows- compatible
> >> products, according to Gartner analyst Robin Simpson. ---

> >> Microsoft could not immediately be reached for comment.
> >> Gartner said agencies and businesses seeking Microsoft alternatives
> >> are most likely to turn to Linux and open-source integration options,
> >> citing low initial setup costs and potential advantages in the
> >> security arena. ---

> > <b>
> >  From the same article:
> > Love-Hate Relationship

> > Forrester analyst Rob Enderle told the E-Commerce Times that there have
> > always been enterprises that have sought to resist Microsoft, but most
> > find few alternatives that are as well developed as the software giant's
> > products.

> In other words Microsoft has the products the rest don't.

then why is Amazon, the worlds largest and most successful e-tailer
running on hp/unix and redhat linux?

Quote:

> > "The reason they got to be the biggest in the first place was they made
> > better products,"

har har har

Quote:>>Enderle said. "They've tried to stay committed to
> > development so that people won't stray or those who do will come back
> > over time."
> > </b>

> > In reality this is completely false.  Microsoft's products have been
> > inferior to competitor products for years.  When MS-DOS was still trying
> > to figure out TSRs (remember those?), CP/M 86 had preemptive
> > multitasking.  When Microsoft was still trying to figure out overlapping
> > windows, UNIX was offering X11.  When Microsoft was still trying to get
> > Windows to run for more than 3 hours between crashing,

> Yet the Windows desktop is winning right now whilst Linux desktops are
> still playing catchup.

lol !   take off the shades, the rose-colored lenses are ruining your
retinas.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> > The reason they got to be big was a strategy they adopted after their
> > first year with MITS.  Rather than leave the OEM with the disgression of
> > selling optional licenses.  They made sure that every OEM included their
> > software with every machine the OEM produced.  When the FTC threatened
> > to prosecute, they settled, and got around the settlement terms by using
> > cliff-tiered pricing to force the OEMs to purchase MORE licenses than
> > they needed.  Later, they tried to force the OEMs to include their
> > application software (Office), and again got around the FTC/DOJ bundling
> > settlement by putting all of the Libraries for Office into Windows, then
> > went to corporate customers and forced them to include office on every
> > machine sold - in exchange for "support" (which turned out to be much
> > less than expected).  When Linux distributors tried to offer Linux to
> > the OEMs, Microsoft altered the OEM licenses to prevent them from
> > altering the boot sequence, preventing the installation of a boot
> > manager to permit dual-boot operation.

m$ used to have a lock on hardware.   one thing they couldnt control
though is evolution.   5 years ago, when pNp reared its most ugly
head, yea, it looked as if hardware was nailed shut by m$ -- BUT we're
in the middle of a hardware explosion as new chips, technologies and
uses appear.   Linux is a part of all of it.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:> > Even today, with a court ruling against it, and a settlement which was
> > intended to prevent Microsoft from preventing OEMs from installing
> > Linux, Microsoft used a clause permitting them to compensate OEMs for
> > development to effectively get around the intent of the settlement by
> > paying the OEMs "bonuses" for "Microsoft Only" (no Linux drivers
> > available when the hardware is released) hardware and drivers.  As a
> > result, the OEMs couldn't install Linux, but Microsoft rewared them by
> > knocking the equivalent of 20-30% off the license price.

> Which begs the question: why is it that court cases such as these just
> don't seem to have the desired effect?

> > Microsoft also leveraged a $4 billion/year advertizing budget by
> > controlling ad placement, giving them effective control of over nearly
> > $40 billion/year.  Microsoft used this leverage to pressure the media
> > industry into writing favorable articles singing the praises of
> > Vaporware that didn't exist, and to discourage favorable coverage of
> > Mac, and UNIX, including Solaris, Interactive Unix, UnixWare, and
> > Linux.  When articles were written, writers were very careful to throw
> > in some left-handed compliments, and then "balance" their article by
> > pointing out minor faults as major issues, while ignoring the advantages.

> So all those article writers out there have been bought by Microsoft?

> > It wasn't until Red Hat Linux 4.0 won "Product of the Year" in a dead
> > heat tie with Windows NT 4.0 that Linux really got any official
> > recognition.   By Red Hat 4.2, Linux was winning awards from many
> > publications, and Microsoft was scrambling to catch up.  Red Hat tried
> > to crack the OEM market, offering quantity prices as low as $2/copy, but
> > the OEMs were blocked by Microsoft's license terms, especially with the
> > release of Windows 98.

> > Red Hat focused on the server market, and very quickly Linux machines
> > began covertly popping into data centers all over the world.  
> > Eventually, when IDC began asking CIOs if they used Linux, they
> > investigated, and 17% found that they were using Linux.  Many web sites
> > were using Linux and many hosting companies were using thousands of
> > Linux servers. Each area where Linux was used, it quickly established
> > itself as a leader in the field, outperforming even the best competitors
> > within the size and class being used.

> The server market, I notice.

> > Microsoft is still trying to find legal, or even illegal, ways to keep
> > Microsoft out of it's critical desktop market.  They have already seen
> > the damage Linux can due based on their experience in the server
> > market.  Last year, Linux and Microsoft were running neck and neck in
> > the server market in terms of units deployed, and there are a few
> > indications that Linux is now leading the market.

> Microsoft never did well in the server market; they do much better in
> the desktop market. LGX has yet to reach a point where it can do well in
> the desktop market, it still has a few hurdles to get over.

> > Microsoft still controls the OEM distribution channel, and allows no
> > competitors.  When Sun tried to offer Java 2 to the OEMS, or to
> > encourage them to install their own compatible Java 2 implementations,
> > Microsoft had prevented the OEMs from doing so.

> > To claim that Microsoft products were far superior to their competitors
> > is, at best, a subjective statement.  For most of the last 10 years,
> > there hasn't been much opportunity to make comparisons.  To claim that
> > this was the primary reason for Microsoft's success, is just plain
> > ignorance.

> Yet the Windows desktop market is still unbeatable by the LGX offerings!

> > Microsoft was able to prevent IBM from shipping Warp 4 on their own PCs,
> > an operating system for which IBM had paid Microsoft over $1 billion and
> > had invested another $2 billion on their own R&D.

 
 
 

1. U.S. To Probe Microsoft Passport Flaw -- NEWSFACTOR.com

http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/21481.html
U.S. To Probe Microsoft Passport Flaw
Keith Regan  --  May 09 2003

Although potential financial losses would be unlikely to dent
Microsoft's cash- heavy wallet, public relations damage as a result of
the revelation could be far more worrisome to the software giant.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) plans to review whether Microsoft
(Nasdaq: MSFT) violated a consent agreement with the agency over the
privacy of its Passport online password system, following the
revelation of a flaw that could have compromised millions of
consumers' private data.
----

But Passport also has been the focus of controversy for some time.
Last August, Microsoft settled FTC charges alleging that Passport did
not effectively protect personal data.
....... unquote .......

2. General Linux Question!

3. microsoft patch -- NEWSFACTOR.com/

4. trouble with Squirrelmail

5. Microsoft embraces Linux -- NEWSFACTOR.com

6. freebsd or linux?

7. Microsoft Removal 101, newsFACTOR.com

8. irc

9. jlg058@home.com, tlg62@home.com, egglectric@home.com

10. Aberdeen Analyst Finds SCO's Claims Tough To Verify, newsFactor.com

11. Analyst Finds SCO's Claims Tough To Verify, newsFACTOR.com

12. "We will disavow any knowledge of this product" -- NEWSFACTOR.com

13. Thousands Say 'SCO Sue Me' -- NEWSFACTOR.com