Examining Microsoft's recent attack on open source

As soon as I read the quote, I didn't have to read the rest of the article to know what Allchin said is backwards. Does he expect us to actually believe this stuff. Sounds like a desperate attempt to shoot down the competition (in this case, the open source community).
Maybe Microsoft should jump on the bandwagon for a change and start releasing open source software. I know that won't happen, but I thought you could use a laugh. But they are going to have to do something.

As a student Open Source software is an excellent means for me to hack my way around some software or an OS. I have learnt more about information theory and systems at home tinkering with Linux than MicroSoft will ever give me the opportunity to learn. A huge shout-out to the Open Source crew for their hard work, thanx a heap.

30 billion dollars explains why Microsoft attacks anything to do with open source or Linux in general. It's that simple. And let's don't forget that Microsoft has been known to use "vaporware tactics" whenever, or wherever possible. They want us to think that vaporware is what open source is all about. IBM is moving the open source model forward with the idea that you make money on hardware, training and technical support.

Microsoft doesn't do any of those things good. Matter of fact, as far as I am concerned the only thing they do go is....Sales!

Please, let no one suggest that Microsoft are a danger to intellectual property.
They would never steal, say, someone else's Operating System or GUI, and I'm sure Digital Research; Xerox etc. etc. would agree.

MS has a lot of gall to say that open software, by extension, open architechture is unamerican. He should feel threatened by it. After all, MS-DOS would be just another OS if IBM hadn't happened to pick MS for its preferred OS on the PC. Althoughthe OS wasn't open sourced, the architecture of the PC was. This pushed hardware developers to make more and more add-ons to the PC which in turn pushed sales which in turn poured $$ into MS coffers. When IBM tried to close down the open architecture with microchannel the industry simply went its own way with the established architechture.
The only thing in my mind that made IE what it is today is that it comes with the OS, and if you don't want it, too bad, try to remove it.

That on the same page that you guys promote open source code you also advertise for 3 Microsoft operating system books..?

No, actually, if we followed Microsofts lead we'd cheat some opensource guy in a small shop in Seattle out of his code for almost no money with a clever legal wording from our dad -the lawyer- and his friends. Then we would steal source code from a commercial company with a better user interface for his code and decompile it to later recompile it with our name on it (insert help from more lawyers here). Then we would try to drive all other opensource people out of their right to do anything similar, or figure out ways involving *MONEY* to do the same. Unfortunately, companies like Microsoft can't survive without people writing independant programs to steal from. Their in house R&D completely sucks and with their culture probably will continue to. They know it. "Hobby Programming" OpenSource or previous, has always really driven this industry.

Microsoftese: "Jim was not misquoted," a Microsoft official said, referring to an interview in which Platforms Group Vice President Allchin was said to have warned that "open source is an intellectual-property destroyer."

Translation: "We're scared."

Microsoftese: "I worry if the government encourages open source...."

Translation: "We're very, very scared."

Microsoftese: "I don't think we've done enough education of policy makers to understand the threat."

Translation: "Pengiuns are known to be devil worshippers."

Microsoftese: "anyone who adds or innovates under the GPL agrees to make the resulting code, in its entirety, available for all to use ... [which] might constrain innovating stemming from taxpayer-funded software development."

Translation: "Our developers continue to deliver substandard goods, so we've told our marketers to launch a campaign of misinformation against anyone who threatens our plans for world domination."

I take it you have never used PKZIP or other freeware and you have paid for all your shareware.

Also, I hope you will be happy to pay for the air that you will breathe when the environment is so polluted that clean air is metered (not such an unfeasible speculation).

Uh... when has MS made innovative products for users? They got the OS contract from IBM before they had an OS, they didn't develop DOS, they bought it and IBM was stupid enough to license instead of purchase the rights. Since then they've done one good thing and that's get people used to the idea that OS's crash and are unreliable since they put out apps that have barely been debugged (and we pay for the priviledge of debugging their software?), that's why we are so used to service packs and patches...debugging takes time and MS knows that it can ship, people will buy, and it can take it's merry time letting us find all the bugs and security holes in Exchange while it takes it's time writing patches. -- Maybe you'll forgive anything for a blue background, but I'd rather some reliable source code than a prety interface. -- Oh, BTW, ask all those MS loyalist developers how exciting the lack of backwards compatibility in MS latest offering of Visual Basic -- I guess they couldn't figure out how to include Object-Oriented capabilities without introducing a new round of incompatibilites between legacy apps and apps written in the new code all the VB deveopers will have to learn.

"[W]ho the heck wants to write a virus when it'll only be exposed to a few (if any) systems besides the intial target"? Do you really think that holds water? How many Linux servers play major roles on the Internet? How long has the Unix model been around? How secure is Unix/Linux generally, as compared to WinMe/9x/NT? What would you bet your business on? As for viruses being worse for Open Source Code being freely available: does it not make sense to you that anti-virus writers will also have full access to the code, and perhaps will be able to write *better* AV software? Also, script kiddies won't get very far against various levels of permissions (from directory/file access/manipulation to remote access/manipulation), as it's not the same paradigm at all. Also, you are overlooking an obvious point of contention here: M$ products suffer the effects of corporate myopia; their software products' architecture is maintained in a vacuum, all beta testing aside. It has to be, so the company can launch (at high expense) a new product or next-iteration product on schedule to maintain income. Patches for those products take a long time to come out because they too are developed in a vacuum (no one else being allowed to see the source). Sometimes, these patches don't see the light of day until the next big release, when the company can call it an "upgrade".

Ultimately, your thought serves no-one but mega-corps like Microsoft, who love FUD like you're attempting to spout. As for "cream of the crop" programmers working solely for the big corps, that's a laugh. Microsoft and others have learned the term "brain drain" the hard way. So-called "top programmers" at Microsoft have to enjoy bondage gear an awful lot, too, as they haveany number of company-based restrictions on their innovations.

First off, the Author 'proved' the value of open source by quoting directly from the open source agreement. It's amazing what one can 'prove' when quoting one's own postulates. Religious leaders prove lots of things by pointing to their texts.

Secondly. It's amazing to me the slurs and profanity that are emitted by open source supporters when the word "Microsoft" enters the thread. Microsoft puts out a good product. Microsoft also has the company resources and communication mechanisms todevelop long term projects. Something open-source developers do not have.

The unstated assumption in many pro-Linux commentators is that somehow an individual Linux programmer is somehow better than a Microsoft developer. Microsoft employees know better than to create 'hacks' to an operating system. The Operating System developers are the stated 'cream of the crop' who work on teams with extensive testing to produce the tightest code they can. The fact that errors appear anyway is a testament to the widespread use of Microsoft's products, not of their quality.

Open-source may prove to be valuable in smaller application development where little to no vision is required, but the Operating System, by nature, is much too complex to be trusted to individuals. While I'm sure Linux supporters will snicker at the next statement, but the underlying truth is still there. Linux programmers working individually would never had made the leap from Win3.1 to Win95.

-James

You're damn right Erolin!
Microsoft is sweating in fear now. They must thinking of other ways in preserving their business. I believe, they will eventually create their own MS-Linux. Hahaha...
http://www.mslinux.org

1) IBM THREW AWAY its web server and adopted Apache and contributes to it. IBM sells plenty of Apache/WebSphere products and their customers and bottom line are doing quite well.
2) The measurable difference in quality at every level between open and closed source is incredible. Everyone who uses an Open Source alternative discovers that it is good for them because it doesn't crash and bugs get fixed, correctly, in hours or days not weeks or months (if ever!) I hardly think thats bad for the software business.
3) MS might believe that opening windoze would destroy their revenue model, but in fact it might enhance it. I think a lot of people would willingly work to clean up their garbage in order to protect current investments in MS platforms. And then the promise of wonderful things that windoze could bring but mostly doesn't because the quality is so bad, night actually come to pass.

[disclamer: these are my opinions only and not those of IBM]

These days, it seems like prople like Bill Gates and the like are being a little out of reality. The person who invented the chair was not less intelligent than that who invented Windows. Yet we don't pay royalties for ever on that invention. The person who invented the stove or the Ultra Sound machine were just as intelligent and yet they do not try to milk customers for ever like the people above are trying to do.

If 63,000 known bugs in the initial distribution of Windows 2000 is Chad's example of the quality that Microsoft produces, I believe he may want to reconsider his opinion. Understandably new software always has bugs, but poor Q/A is no excuse for trying to retain market share.

You are accurate that a majority of open source efforts are done by developers as a side job. The fact is these individuals tend to have more programming experience than the recent college graduates hired by many commercial companies. Experience typically equates to better quality and less shortcuts -- shortcuts that eventually cause bugs.

I'm more irritated at the bugs I find in commercial software than the ones I find in open source. At least the open source bugs get resolved quickly and are accessible. Commercial patches can take weeks or months while they wait for an "equitable release date".

Using Chad's example, am I really "getting what I pay for"? I don't think so. At least if it's cheap/free, I don't lose my money as well as my time.

'Case Closed' doesn't sound like a good way to open a discussion. It sounds more like somebody who doesn't want to learn anything about something they don't know the first thing about (As always these people also have the 'loudest'opinions).

People do make money with open source - it's tradicionally done in the enhancements and support, but not exclusevely. I guess the case is porobably close now.

Oh FYI, the only OS where you are guaranteed to find the BSD is Windows. Other OS don't use a blue screen... :-)

I think you are right about one thing though, and is that we should be doing productive things for our employers now...

1997 Microsoft purchased hotmail, preached about migration to win2k, troubles, it is still 92% served off sun sparc enterprise servers running freeBSD. msdn.microsoft.com downloads from Conexion are being served of Sun, as does Microsofts bCentral and LinkExchange, both run off of freeBSD. It's kind of hard to shell out $$$ for an operating system that what's the chinese saying, display the goats head, but sell the dog meat. Put MS banners and logo's being served up from /home/httpd/html/hotmailwin2ksmokescreen/

I can't complain though, as a MCSE, the fact is I know that I will always have a job supporting NT and Win2k. I wouldn't mind being a SysAdmin for a unix based company and having free time to sit around and develop, it wouldbe as though the Maytag repairmen invented new technology washers and dryers in the comercials instead of just sat and complained.

When free stuff are floating around, those who make most noise are those who have a slice of the cake.

I'm so classy that I like those OS that require a Ctrl-Alt-Del to restore its health once a while. I've used that-kind-of-OS 10 years, and I already used to pressing that 3 keys several times a day, and I hate ppl from stealing that feeling away from me.

I especially like the browser that allow remote attacker to access something on my PC .

And I esp like money, I like the feeling ofchasing after it all time in my life and leave nothing else for myself till I bring it with me to my grave - it sure cold down there, need some cover.

Thanks for your time.

I suggest that before making such statements Chad, that you take a look at the picture in whole. Just because one programs in "open source", it does not mean that one cannot make any money at it. Red Hat is a good example. I find your statment "If you use such stuff then you are STUPID and contributing to the downfall of society" an insult to both me and your own intelligence. Open source and the like contribute greatly to our "society" and benifits companies like Microsoft ( who is known fortheir bug prone software)by forcing them to pay more attention to the product they are putting out. In short, it keeps them on their colective toes.

Have you ever tested Linux??? Try it, and you will change your mind about cheap=crap!
Just try out the stability of linux compared to win98/me and even Windows 2000! You'll be amazed how good Linux works!

I use good hardware, buggy software, get OS lockups and the infamous BSD all the time, for the last 13 years. It all had the MS logo plastered over it. If that's your idea of quality then give me open source any day, it can't be much worse.

There is nothing right or wrong with purchasing a commercially supported product... certainly value for dollar for your particular situation is your decision.

The problem here is the outrageous (desparate?) claim by MS that somehow open source isunamarican and a threat to innovation. There is a marketplace out there. If MS does a great job, they will succeed, people such as yourself will be comfortable paying the bucks because of the company behind it.

To say it stifles inovation is absurd. The most prolific innovation occurs when people share ideas instead of locking them up (this is historically how much of university science operates) because every additional tweak is likely to inspire cascades of ideas from others. Locking code up within corporations or departments prevents this natural chain reaction of ideas.

jay

I heard Microsoft is encouraging their employees to post pro-Microsoft messages and letters to the editor. This message by Chad looks like a prime example.

Yes it is true that bugs get fixed quicker in open source. The reason they get fixed quicker is because creators of open source material do not spend all their time blaming another open source author for their mistakes. Here are two great examples. Both are from well known companies which carry "top of line" hardwre and "quality" software.

ex. 1 Microsoft 98 Second Edition and Compaq Armada M700's. There is a known bug that has been around now for a good 6 months if a person has Microsoft 98 SE "quality" software with a Compaq M700 "High quality hardware." Basically the machine hangs on shutdown. You have to cut the power to turn the machine off. No big deal right? Wrong, as anyone knows with Microsoft cutting the power without properly shutting down the machine will corrupt the files on the hard drive. Anyway, is there a fix? Nope. Instead of working together the two companies have been sitting there pointing fingers at each other blaming each other. At least Compaq has posted explicit details of at least 3 reasons why this happens. They also have posted 3 hotfixes that of course do not work. Microsoft has yet to address the problem because it is not a fault in their code.

ex 2. Fujitsu Lifebook S4510 and Mcafee VirusScan. There is a known bug with these two companies where the Fujitsu will lock up during bootup if Mcafee Thin Client v6.0.0 and Mcafee's Epo Agent is on the machine. Neither company will take a look at the problem because it is not theirfault. It is the other companies fault.

By your own admission, ie. "if you ... install buggy software from anywhere then you will get OS lockups and the infamous BSD.", the only OS manufacturer I can think of which provides us with the beloved and infamous BSDs must then be a creator of "buggy software from anywhere".

Can anyone out there truthfully say that they have used a MS product in an enterprise enviroment that had no bugs and for which no patches where issued? For God's sake, MS invented the term "service pack"!

Microsoft is notorious for stealing the code of others and incorporating it into their programs, I guess their concept of open source would be "I can use yours but you can't use mine...".

Of course people must make money to perpetuate the economy and there will always be software (specialty programs for instance) that does not fall into the open source category. Programmers who polish their skills by collaberating on projects for free do not, I think, contribute to the "downfall of society". Whatcontributes to the downfall of society is when people start to blindly believe the corporate posturing that anything that detracts from their bottom line is inherently evil. Blind allegience to the dollar is society's downfall - "love of money, root of all evil" - sound familiar?

Microsoft can't beat open source because open source programmers write code because they love to do it. Microsoft programmers write code because they have to to get paid. Who do you think will create a better program?

This attempt to paint a money grubbing, overcharging company as some sort of social icon is laughable and pathetic.

Our American capitalist society is based on a balance between commercial interests (e.g. MS and other developers) that want to maximize short and long term profit, and the consumer who wants to spend as little as possible and get as much value as possible for it. There is nothing wrong with either of those things.

But for you to say that promoting the interests of consumers contributes to the downfall of socity begs ridicule. I agree that it is a force that can change society as we know it, but that is not bad. True, the success of open source can mean that the software industry might become less of a cash cow for producers, but that is the same as what happened to the typewriter industry, or countless others that have been sidelined by new developments. It's called progress. Other labor markets will replace software as future technologies are introduced. Don't feed us your crap that if the software business becomes low margin then our society has somehow failed. It has progressed! Go learn a new skill.

Microsoft has been successful in managing "innovation" in a way that maximizes it's profit. Suddenly a lot of people who somewhat more closely represent consumers have figured out a way to be more innovative andprofits are threatened as a result. That's true, and that's also good. I just hope society figures out how to roll with this punch because it's going to be a big and very sudden one.

Like I said, go learn a new skill because you won't always make your living the way you do now. If it's not open source that causes it, it will be something else.

As a developer I can understand both sides of this issue. I believe that so long as 'Open Source' is a voluntary election by the author, then it can be a good thing. On the other hand to force companies to show their intellectual property would beunfair at best and most likely unlawful. All you have to do is look at it like a card game. If each player would turn their cards around and let everyone see their hand, I would think that everyone could make safe bets with play money and it would be just a game. Throw money on the table and watch how fast the cards turn around. Everyone has five cards, yet each person can win or lose based on what they do with their hand. Try going to Vegas and declaring 'In the interest of fairness, everyone now has to show all of their cards as they play'. People invest into intellectual property with the knowledge that it will take a long time for the competition to catch up provided they don't show their hand. With Netscape I guess you could sing the old Kenny Rogers song, 'You have to now when to show them and now when to fold them'!:>)

Robert M. Allen Sr.
Vice President of R&D

Computer Information Analysts, Inc.
3900 East Monument Street
Baltimore, MD 21205

Sales: 888-313-4227
Fax: 410-522-7681
Tech: 410-522-2233
Email: rallensr@ciainfo.com
Web: http://www.ciainfo.com

Never in my life have I heard anything quite so woefully researched!

To suggest that not buying commercial software is going to bring society down is not just a misnomer, it also suggests that computing is the only industry, therefore it must be supported!

The whole point of Open Source, is that true, some of the contributing authors might not make a huge amount of money out of it, some do, but if someone can fix a bug for themselves, and release it for others to take advantage of, instead of waiting for an 'improved' version (i.e. bug fix!) from Microsoft... stands to reason they are only to opt for the former.

I also have used Microsoft products for over ten years, and its been my experience that other people have done it betterfirst, but then Microsoft chucks its corporate might behind it and well, we know the casualties (MacOS, AmigaOS, Netscape etc, etc).

Trying to blame Microsofts inability to NOT rush a product out, thus having a tonne of bugs on 'crappy' hardware,is naive and narrow minded! Windows is NOT a subject lesson into how to code an EFFICIENT and ELEGANT OS!

But of course, like you say, all free stuff is junk and stuff you pay for is good..... what the hell kind of argument is that?

Sounds suspiciously like someone who is a little unhappy about paying $100 for the 'next big thing' when in fact its just a buggy almalgamation of something else that was released months before..... for free.... bugfixed..... improved.... Still, Microsoft will always sell you a bugfix, or is that a new version... I don't know these days!

Happy reading.

"If you use such stuff then you are STUPID and contributing to the downfall of society."

LOL! I love this one! Instead of MS being the Devil, Open Source is! I must say a fresh view on things even if it is powered by the MS Propaganda Machine.
"By the way, if you are cheap, use crappy hardware, and install buggy software from anywhere then you will get OS lockups and the infamous BSD."

And windows is NOT buggy? Then how do you explain all the service packs? I believe Win2K SP1 was about 110 megs. Pretty big for an OS that isn't buggy.

"I've used Micorsoft software (OS and productivity) for over 10 years and will not use anything else. If Microsoft produces it, it'll be good."

Uhm.. Recent example: Win2K Active Directory bug that won't be fixed. Instead ppl will have to spend more money on an M$ product (Whistler/XP)

Sure sounds like "good for M$", but then again, God MS can do no wrong with some people.

I've encountered the infamous Microsoft Blue Screen of Death on every type of PC that I have ever encountered. Brand new, out of box, you name the brand... Yes, some are better, but it's mostly Microsoft & their sloppy programming. On the other hand, using Linux on the same hardware usually solves the problem completely. If you can find the software you need, you completely avoid the MS BS altogether. You place much too high a value on your buddies at Microsoft. They are human & make the same mistakes we all do. They are pressured to "Ship It" before it's ready, & they don't ever get all the bugs out. Bug removal doesn't make money. You don't always get what you pay for. You pay what the market will bear, & it sounds like you will bear anything Bill gives you, at your expense.

Either you are in Bill Gates' pocket, or a union sympathizer. Have you never heard of the dreaded blue screen of death which is so common with Microsoft products? I, for one, wish much success for Linux and open source. If the Microsoft monster is finally driven out of business, the OS market might finally see a little healthy competition and more reasonable prices.

In response to your comments, BSD is a direct reference to a MICROSOFT system error, not free, "crappy" stuff that you refer to. Linux, BSD, and just about any GNU software is usually as good (and sometimes better) than any product Microsoft produces. If it isn't as good as purchased software, it probably soon will be as it will be constantly improved by many people with many ideas of what makes good software. Paying for a program gives you nothing but the RIGHT to contact the company that created the program for support when it screws up. Microsoft has a limited number of developers, Open Source has a larger number because of its nature, whether they are working on the programs for companies like RED HAT (who does sell both software and service for real money) or as hobbyists who have more interest in learning how to REALLY use a computer than most MS "paint-by-numbers" developers. Free software and a little bit of knowledge is worth more that expensive "store bought" stuff as its return on investment is much higher. Air, true love,and laughter are free, to name a few things. If you only get what you pay for, you must have a very curious (and maybe sad) life.

I want to talk to your boss..... Because it's YOU sir that will be out of a job when he realizes I can administer Linux for less money with less ongoing maintenance cost due to the fact I can work LESS hours for MORE companies for, yes MORE money overall. Oh yeah, he will still want to buy good equipment, but not as often and if you had LEARNED about how computers actually work rather than going believing all the idiotic content on your way to an MSCE, you too could run it easier and better. Good programmers never lack for work or money, either. A good open source program written and distributed correctly by you will get you endless job offers and projects and, yes, MONEY. Your reliance on one path "Micorsoft" (your spelling) is pathetic.
P.S. in case you didn't get this, this is a flame. You deserve it.

In your 10 years of adoration for Microsoft's "Hassle Free" "Bug Free" software, you apparently missed somerthing.

Specifically:
NT4 SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4, SP5, SP6 SP6a
Win 95 OSRB
Win 98 SE
Win 2000 SP1
MS Office SP1, SP2

I'm probably overlooking many of the other patches, fixes, kluges, workarounds and other attempts by your beloved MS to develop a single piece of bug free code for ANY hardware platform regardless of price.

Microsofts approach to innovation has always been tobuy it from the innovators, and failing that to discredit, or destroy it.

It is their relentless struggle to stifle competition that truly stifles innovation, and the development of quality software.

Microsoft's products are the most bloated, buggy, outrageous pieces of software on the market. And, if it wasn't so hideously overpriced, people wouldn't try to save a buck by buying the cheaper software. Further, opensource is the only answer to protecting the quality of software. If we leave it up to MS, we are leaving software quality up to a company that would produce a software package with just enough bugs to force you to buy the upgrades, which are mostly bug fixes (I give you windowsME). Further, if you allow the proprietized OS to take over, turning MS into a monopoly (it is happening, watch the news) you will have a company that has no REASON to make better software, because it is either their bloated, flashy media-based packages or nothing. I mean, have you installed FrontPage? All it is is an HTML editor!! Come on! Open Source is a product of the consumer getting fed up with the big software corps. It is a chance for people to share their ideas concerning the technology. With MS, if you want to share your ideas, you will have to invest in their developer's packages, use a language that allows little actual system manipulation, and if you haven't gotten fed up with them and pirated it yet, pay hundreds of dollars for the developer's suite (I give you Developer Studio 6, with the proprietized and no longer functional Java developer). And if youre really lucky, you can code with Directx controls etc., and maybe the version of directx youre using will messup your workstations (I give you the newest Directx betas). MS has NEVER produced a good software title. In closing, Linux is the best OS on the market, and its FREE. Not junk, but free. Unless you don't have the SKILL to use it, and have to settle for an NT system, Linux is cheaper and more stable. And if it isn't what you want, you can make it whatever you desire, because its *gasp* Open Source!

Window is not quality software. It is so full of bugs and is only grudging accepted. Anybody that uses a real computer with a real OS knows that Windows is a Joke. A real OS is something like VMS, Tru 64 UNIX, AIX and other UNIX Operating systems.

A quick note:

One of the few times I've seen MS admit that they used other people's code (they had to by the open-source license that came with it) is when I ran the unix strings command on ftp.exe. Results: open-source BSD program.

Those communist bastards!

John C.

Well, I guess there's no need to yell at this kind of people. Obviously, they never open their eyes to see and check other things beside their "sophisticated" product (M$ and its apps). They never check at security sites to see that even M$ has build in trojan to control their software remotely. Quite sad. You all should see, one of the beauty of open source is you CAN see the source code, which mean you CAN check what does the software really do, not like M$ apps, you'll never know what they really do inside the app itself.

If MS lets trojans out with their software, they open the door to being sued. If some piece of open source software has a trojan, who is responsible? Who are you going to sue? I venture to guess you won't be able to take legal action and you would be stuck.

Yes, bugs in software are maddening, but this a fact of life. The more complex the software the more likelihood of bugs. Yes, a single developer-based product could be preferred to a team-based product as being less buggy. But, how long would it take a single person to create a robust OS like Windows 9x, Me, NT, 2000, BeOS, Linux, Unix, etc., etc. Far, far too long.

I don't think MS really believes itself when they say open source will stifle innovation. What they are really afraid of is competition.

If MS releases the code to their o/s's, they are probably afraid that there will be a bunch of knock-offs that will dilute their market share. Especially if the knock-offs are more stable than theirs.

If you think giving away intellectual property is unprofitable, check out www.baen.com & click on their Free Library link. They have whole books there to read for free. According to the page, their sales have INCREASED since they started doing this.Free does not necessarily mean unprofitable.

These threads are eerily similar to the Apple vs. Microsoft Religious Wars 10-15 years ago. Ultimately the market will decide who gets to be king of the hill.

Apple faltered because its hardware was proprietary and closed. It would be ironic ifMicrosoft falters because its software followed the same path.

Allchin's claim that open source is an intellectual property destroyer rings hollow when coming from the very same Redmond machine infamous for 'borrowing' from the vanquished - disk doubling, Apple GUI, NT and UNIX, IBM preannouncement to freeze the customer buying decision, etc.

To compete against Microsoft dominance, a competitor must change the rules - such as with disruptive technology or disruptive marketing techniques like open source.

Healthy competition has always benefited the consumer. Look how the telecom market and consumer services flourished once AT&T opened access to its network.

Microsoft software does have its place on the desktop today. However,where reliability means dollars, UNIX is king. The telecom industry uses UNIX platforms to meet the Bellcore 99.999% uptime standard. They are grateful for a Linux alternative - if for no other reason then they can fix bugs, unbeholden to the unresponsive Microsoft juggernaut.

Obviously Microsoft is threatened. When the market leader whines that the competition is unfair, fear is in the air. Microsoft has the advantage in the desktop market - IT departments have huge investments in Microsoft training and licenses. Priests are loyal to the parish that brings in the tithing masses. That ain't true in markets like telecom and others, where pragmatism wins out over dogmatism.

Microsoft should be watching over their shoulder. Allchin's claims of 'unAmericanism' and 'bad for the consumer' are merely self-projections.

These threads are eerily similar to the Apple vs. Microsoft Religious Wars 10-15 years ago. Ultimately the market will decide who gets to be king of the hill.

Apple faltered because its hardware was proprietary and closed. It would be ironic ifMicrosoft falters because its software followed the same path.

Allchin's claim that open source is an intellectual property destroyer rings hollow when coming from the very same Redmond machine infamous for 'borrowing' from the vanquished - disk doubling, Apple GUI, NT and UNIX, IBM preannouncement to freeze the customer buying decision, etc.

To compete against Microsoft dominance, a competitor must change the rules - such as with disruptive technology or disruptive marketing techniques like open source.

Healthy competition has always benefited the consumer. Look how the telecom market and consumer services flourished once AT&T opened access to its network.

Microsoft software does have its place on the desktop today. However,where reliability means dollars, UNIX is king. The telecom industry uses UNIX platforms to meet the Bellcore 99.999% uptime standard. They are grateful for a Linux alternative - if for no other reason then they can fix bugs, unbeholden to the unresponsive Microsoft juggernaut.

Obviously Microsoft is threatened. When the market leader whines that the competition is unfair, fear is in the air. Microsoft has the advantage in the desktop market - IT departments have huge investments in Microsoft training and licenses. Priests are loyal to the parish that brings in the tithing masses. That ain't true in markets like telecom and others, where pragmatism wins out over dogmatism.

Microsoft should be watching over their shoulder. Allchin's claims of 'unAmericanism' and 'bad for the consumer' are merely self-projections.

I'm glad that someone pointed out the quasi religious nature of the debate so far. I myself grew up on the Apple and Mac OS's but have recently decided to venture out and play with some different OS's. I'm currently working with Windows 2000 and interested in learning Linux as well.
I invite people to attempt to sway me one way or the other. Linux sites stress the ineffeciancy of Windows and now Microsoft disses Linux. Please let me know the strengths and weaknesses of the two OS's.
Thanks
Todd