General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2089323

    Microsoft VX Free Code

    Locked

    by brike1 ·

    Microsoft said on 5/2/01 that it will be a strong foe to free code. They say that it is an attack to the intelectual property rules, yada, yada, yada(http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/03/technology/03SOFT.html). They believe in innovation. I say that innovation is fine as long as it comes from Microsoft, apparently. What about those that are not so big? I also read that they are offering prizes to distributors who send them a list of customers who order PC’s without an operating system. What is happening? KGBism?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3809203

      Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt….

      by admin ·

      In reply to Microsoft VX Free Code

      the cornerstones of Microsofts marketing…
      As pointed out in other discussions, it’s interesting that Microsoft has opensource code existing in some of it’s releases, but disallows any decompilation or extraction of it’s own….. same old same old…

    • #3809100

      You’re surprised?

      by epepke ·

      In reply to Microsoft VX Free Code

      Didn’t you know this was going to happen five years ago?

      This is getting kind of old. Every time Microsoft does something 500-pound-gorilla-like, people get upset and say they are fed up and aren’t going to take it any more. Then about 45 nanoseconds later they forget all about it and all is forgiven and they’re spending $200 on an *upgrade*.

      If you don’t like it, don’t vote for it. Those green pieces of paper in your wallet are votes.

      • #3808918

        You are so right!

        by brike1 ·

        In reply to You’re surprised?

        We forgot how to exercise the consumer’s right to choose against a monopoly. What about the right one has to buy something and do with it whatever they want? Gone??

    • #3808962

      Prizes = Intimidation

      by former ms supporter ·

      In reply to Microsoft VX Free Code

      Gee, it sounds like MS just turned the punishment they received over intimidating and threatening companies not wanting to preload their stuff around. So instead of punishing their ‘offenders’, they’re offering gifts to their ‘friends’. Hmm – I wonder if Compaq, IBM, HP, and others who’re preloading with variations of UNIX/Linux have their feelings hurt? I doubt it. But it still seems quite an intimidation for small companies, having to either fight other companies who’re ‘getting help’ from MS, or follow suit to make a go of it. BTW, yeah I still use and like MS products (not exclusively though), but I’m getting tired of their business practices. They’re starting to remind me of the RIAA, especially with the software registration keycode stance. And didn’t MS just release the statement concerning being more open and free with their code? Which statement and policy concerning the code should we listen to?

    • #3808613

      Big, big trouble for Microsoft

      by dcavanaugh ·

      In reply to Microsoft VX Free Code

      Consider the Internet itself. It originated with a grant-funded program, for essentially military purposes. Lots of money in the budget, profitability was not an issue.

      Now we have developing countries adopting Linux as a government standard, since they don’t have the money to pay M$.

      Now consider the NSA version of Linux. I assume the result of an expensive NSA program will be something that will not be hacked by the first VB script kiddie that comes along.

      When government agencies try to grapple with security/privacy issues (and reduce cost and licensing BS at the same time), it will be hard for them to resist the NSA-endorsed version of Linux. Every new virus that comes out will be another nail in the M$ coffin.

      M$ cannot outspend the government, nor can it undercut the price of open source. IMHO, Microsoft fears the combination of government money + GPL/open source. This could easily kill off a substantial chunk of the M$ empire.

      Is M$ in a position to make their products so secure that NSA-Linux is unnecessary? I doubt it.

      • #3809919

        And who made the internet popular?

        by admin ·

        In reply to Big, big trouble for Microsoft

        Unfortunately, not the Unix shell accounts that work so technically well. It was browsers running on MS.

        >Is M$ in a position to make their products so secure that NSA-Linux is unnecessary?

        We have secure (relatively) OS’s available now that the general public can’t seem to get the hang of.
        My question is: Can the government or GPL/OpenSource produce a product the public can (and will) use?
        Hell, there is already much better, cheaper server products available, and a bunch of the IT pro’s here can’t seem to figure out how to install them, much less use them. How can we expect the public to do this soon? I don’t think Joe Public likes a secure, reliable system that much. He seems to prefer to complain like mad and buy the next MS product. MS products, like it or not, are the products of the people. People who don’t want tech hero’s to save them. People who, like Joe Dirt, can feel that they are somehow smart and superior sticking their heads in an alligators mouth and somehow living. The mythology that has built up around this is amazing. Sure, people will say Joe Dirt is a bad movie and MS sucks -but they’ll pay for both and skip the Sundance festival and Linux tickets.

        • #3809783

          That’s what we used to say about DOS

          by brike1 ·

          In reply to And who made the internet popular?

          Someone has to star something, like Bill Gates did. Let them do it, like IBM let Bill Gates do it.

        • #3809773

          Internet popular in spite of M$

          by shanghai sam ·

          In reply to And who made the internet popular?

          As I recall, it was first Mosaic on Unix stations and later Netscape on multiple platforms that made the Internet popular. Sure, M$ released IE, essentially a poor Netscape clone at the time. Nobody waited for IE; there was no need to. What did early IE do that Netscape did’t do already? On the other hand, it took a while for modems to exceed 14.4K; plenty of people waited for that.

          To answer your “Can they build an OS the public will use” question, let’s see what happens when M$ uses mandatory product activation on their next consumer-grade OS, and bumps the price to $250 or so.

          I think the push for M$ comes not from consumer/users but from their employers. Cheap software (borrowed from the office), cheap hardware (clones madein Taiwan) were behind the success of the PC as much as anything M$ ever did. Macs are suppoedly easier to use, but who uses them at work?

          As employers get tired of script-kiddie e-mail meltdowns and the “Blue Screen Of Death”, they just might look for cheaper alternatives. Add this to the escalation of M$ license costs, and the door is wide open for a govt/open source OS and supporting software.

          If my employer adopts a company-wide OS and/or supporting software (M$ or not), I will surely install it on my home computer, just for compatibility. I have seen more than a few Mac-heads dragged into M$ compliance via this method.

        • #3809768

          Right place at the right time

          by brike2001 ·

          In reply to Internet popular in spite of M$

          PC’s used to be something for companies, perhaps for use at some colleges, and they did not do much but store small databases and letters. It was a very rough calculator that took up a whole building sometimes. The regular Joe Public did not even dream about it because they did not need it, and they could not afford it. Macs were more popular at least in my school days because they were smaller and they could be installed at home. All they did, though, was to provide entertainment at a high cost and some tools for people like me and my brothers to write our homework. We never spent more than a few hours a week on the computer. Until very recently, PC’s were still business machines, except for the Macs. They did not attract Joe Public, still. They were slow and dull. Windows started making PC’s more interesting and affordable (not so much, though), but they were still not so user-friendly as the Macs. When Gates started the world was a virgin market, ready to accept anything that was less dull and less expensive at the same time. Today’s software developers have to prove they are at least close to Windows or Mac. It is a much harder road, but didn’t MS succeed? And neither IBM nor Apple sued them, or put a price tag on users who used Windows. If not for their closed policy Apple computers would have been on everyone’s desk today, and this forum would be about Macs, not PC’s. Open source has to exist. They can bring innovation too. Didn’t MS?

        • #3809766

          Good points, however…

          by admin ·

          In reply to Internet popular in spite of M$

          To clarify, I was not thinking of IE when I wrote this. I was thinking of Windows, which is where Netscape (yes it was the most popular) was used. I too used Mosaic, although myself (and a lot of others at the time) swore by the shell. You really couldn’t beat shell access (yes, part because of modem speed) at the time. However, even with faster modems, I can’t honestly say I think average users would have gotten the internet where it is today (I’m not saying it’s a good thing)if they would of had to use Unix. Oddly enough, while I think Unix makes more sense as an OS and find it more “intuitive” personally, most people have trouble with it.
          I do agree that the low cost of MS products has been a factor. I would even argue that the relative ease (all the worry about organized crime, when many home users think a license covers an entire family)of stealing the software cheaply has been a key to establishing it’s exponential growth. At any rate, you are right that the low expense has been a big part of it, otherwise, MAC would still have the mojo….
          Your comment on script kids and D0S attacks though……. you know, although exploits aren’t aimed at Linux as much, they will be as it becomes more popular. There is definately a long tradition of knowledge regarding the inner workings of Unix, and someone (unfortunately) will make easier interfaces for them to use if more of them have it at home.

        • #3809602

          Security threat vs. market share

          by dcavanaugh ·

          In reply to Good points, however…

          I agree that the security threats against Linux will escalate with market share. It makes no sense for the bad guys to concentrate on anything other than the most popular system.

          If anyone is prepared to deal with hackers, that would be the NSA (at least I hope so). I have yet to see any M$ “innovations” that actually make the OS secure. Time and again, they have proven that security is not one of their priorities.

          Of all the things you might want in an OS, consider M$ today:

          Isit inexpensive? Not anymore; getting more expensive with each release.

          Is it stable? Only compared to prior M$ products; pathetic when compared to the competition.

          Is it secure? Sure, until the next high-school computer class gets to the chapter on VB scripting.

          Can I get support? Only if you pay M$. The average user gets support from other users and the Internet (much like open source).

          Sure, M$ has market share. Many people are “locked in” via M$ Office and a few other key apps. I say their empire is quite vulnerable. People with deep pockets are prepared to compete, and M$ has numerous problems that have been allowed to go unsolved far too long.

        • #3809339

          One particularly good point

          by epepke ·

          In reply to Internet popular in spite of M$

          that you made is about software being “borrowed” from work. I’ll say it more obnoxiously–MS got to be a monopoly because of piracy, and they know it. The notion that the XP activation is a countermeasure against piracy rings particularly hollow.
          However, I do remember back in the DOS days when people called Macs and Amigas “toys” because of the GUI.

          I don’t think it’s just employers. I think that part of it is due to what I call the “acolyte effect.” Amongst the general public, thereare social games. To achieve high social status, one must be able to do something. Gurus just wave their hands imperiously about whether something is Microsoft, Apple, Open Source, whatever. However, acolytes will gravitate toward Microsoft because the interface to the end user provides just enough secret knowledge to enable them to gain social status.

          Macs (I have two and use them for cross-platform development for Mac, Windows, and Palm OS) are easier to use, but that’s the problem. It’s hard to be an acolyte with a Mac, because it just sits there and gets the job done. There is no need for a special amateur expert in the OS except in the rare case of extension conflicts (the most Windows-like of Mac features, like but not as badas DLL files), and even then, you can download a shareware product that figures it out. There’s no need to ask Fred who Knows Everything, so Fred isn’t going to go there. Fred is going to get Microsoft software, which makes him impressive. And, when people ask Fred which computer to buy, of course he’s going to say Wintel.

          (Macs, incidentally, are very popular with physicians. But then again, social standing in the physician community is not based on being able to figure out an arcane piece of software.)

          There will, however, be room for acolytes in Linux GUI systems. It will be interesting to know how this works out.

        • #3799038

          Show me the money

          by shanghai sam ·

          In reply to One particularly good point

          The acolytes are motivated first by money; fame is secondary. If Macs are as easy to develop for as you say, then perhaps less-technical programmers (code for “lower-paid”) can develop Mac applications. In pursuit of real money, “Fred who knows everything” is naturally going to migrate where “knowing everything” is both useful and rewarding. Market share some influence here, but I wonder which comes first.

          In my experience, the “easy to develop for” systems had limitations that kept certain types of hardware or software from being developed. It was generally the “flexibility to do anything” that made matters complicated.

          We all want to get paid for what we know. Otherwise, we might as well just stay home and play with flight simulators. In the complex environments (M$, Linux, [insert your choice here]), there will be some distinction between the beginners and the seasoned pros. If you are “Fred who knows everything” or “Dave who wants to know everything”, where would you go?

Viewing 3 reply threads