Funny how the company constantly has to "clarify" Ballmer's remarks isn't it? If more people and gov't officials weren't so in love with the money they've made off their m$ shares they'd realize that the company got off scott free in the anti-trust case and should have been broken into more pieces than ma bell and standard oil was combined. M$ has been demonstrating the stupidity of our patent system by patenting such things as "using a keyboard to navigate a web browser" even though the open source one "lynx" has been doing that for over 15 years longer than m$ has. The only reason people can't admit they are a horrible monopoloy that should have been busted up if not completely shut down is because they love their stock they have in it.

The goal of Open Source Risk Management (the group from which Ballmer got his statistics) is to sell insurance to Linux users protecting against patent infringement. Their motive is to make $$$ from open source patent infringement, so any claims made by OSRM are dubious at best and should not be taken seriously.

Of course the money-grubbing scumbags at M$ jumped all over this for their own fear-inducing purposes. I wish an earthquake would dump M$ into the Pacific.

Another typical ploy from Microsquish. Planting seeds of doubt through inuendo.

Jake, what's wrong with you? Nothing is wrong with being money-grubbing. If linux truly does violate that many patents then somebody should be held accountable.

The problem is that MS is using rediculuous patents to stifle the market and keep themselves on top. They're patenting every single thing they come up with now, including those like robocoastie said.

Doing a Google search on "microsoft patent infringement" turns up thousands of documents about different patent infringement suits (current and past) against Microsoft. I guess we shouldn't get a real warm fuzzy about the risks involved in using their products either, eh?

Mr. Ballmers statements sound an very much like how the Mofia used to talk to people under their influence. So why isn't the Justice Dept. investigating this as an organized crime tactic.
Do you supose that it is possible to buy out an entire countries government body?

there IS in fact something being wrong with money-grubbing. it's destroying the US and it's destroying the world. from your name (Shiva) i assume that you're from India and new to the wonderful world of global capitalism - you think everybody in the world can drive urban assault vehicles and get rich and that money will solve all the problems in the world. you say, i'm coming from a place where people build shacks between oil pipelines, surely, money can't be a bad thing. but you haven't seen what happens to individuals and societies when there is this much money and power being thrown around. i say, welcome to hell. Microsoft and the rest of the multinational corporations are to blame for the current geopolitical destabilization in the world. goverments are impotent in the face of companies with as much money as Microsoft, Wal-Mart, etc. and they won't stop. they don't just want more - they want EVERYTHING. they can have my copy of Linux when they pry my keyboard out of my cold, dead fingers.

Microsoft’s biggest failing is its insistence upon not declaring what its advantages actually are in comparison to Open Source offerings. This matter is complicated to explain to most users unfamiliar with setting up an Open Source system, since so many features, such as printing, font availability, and integrated networking, etc., are taken as a given from as long ago as Windows 95, and NT 4.0. Only in the last couple of years has Open Source caught up, with offerings, such as Slackware 9.0 / 10.0, which will - with an everything loaded by default - give the user a generally usable installation.

Open Source is a choice for those willing to gain some knowledge, and can be a worthwhile deployment. Microsoft is less demanding on the customer’s computer literacy, and offers very fair value for money.

At the end of the day, the choice is there, and without fear of litigation, for those who want the choice.

Microsoft’s biggest failing is its insistence upon not declaring what its advantages actually are in comparison to Open Source offerings. This matter is complicated to explain to most users unfamiliar with setting up an Open Source system, since so many features, such as printing, font availability, and integrated networking, etc., are taken as a given from as long ago as Windows 95, and NT 4.0. Only in the last couple of years has Open Source caught up, with offerings, such as Slackware 9.0 / 10.0, which will - with an everything loaded by default - give the user a generally usable installation.

Open Source is a choice for those willing to gain some knowledge, and can be a worthwhile deployment. Microsoft is less demanding on the customer’s computer literacy, and offers very fair value for money. At the end of the day, the choice is there, and without fear of litigation, for those who want the choice.

It's just in! m$ has panented 0 and 1, software companies that now use binary are breaking panents!!!

all hail M$ o/ o/ o/ o/ o/ o/

hehe, anyhoo as a company I commend m$, never in the world has a company been able to build a monopoly and keep hold of it. But unfortunately, window sucks harder than a vacuum… so yea…

It's just in! m$ has panented 0 and 1, software companies that now use binary are breaking panents!!!

all hail M$ o/ o/ o/ o/ o/ o/

hehe, anyhoo as a company I commend m$, never in the world has a company been able to build a monopoly and keep hold of it. But unfortunately, window sucks harder than a vacuum… so yea…

As the Bible states "the love of money is the root of all evil." MS is looking at the prospect of shelling out billions to companies such as Novell, Burst and others. Not to mention how they used stolen code for their first Basic interperter, selling an OS they did not own (DOS), driving BeOS out of business, double dealing IBM, deliberate destruction of evidence etc. And that is the short list.

They bad mouth open source while using it in critical places, such as the TCP/IP stack (which came from Berkeley if I remember correctly). As well as still making extensive use of BSD to power the back end of Hotmail.com.

They are a company which seems it will stop at nothing to earn a few dollars. I think I know who the real pirates are....

What MicroScared is doing is yelling fire in a theatre when in fact, there is no fire. Nice try loosers but as the guy said a few posts ago,they can have my copy of Linux when they pry my keyboard out of my cold, dead fingers. I've been a loyal Linux user for 7 years running and remain one until i buy the farm.

Sounds like Powell saying there are WMD in Iraq. Lies Lies Lies

The post by someguy is encouraging. People are realizing that while capitalism and the entrepreneurial spirit can be positive forces in our society, something has gone horribly wrong. Let's make companies like Microsoft pay for their arrogance by not buying any of their lies or their products. This is an easy choice to make since there are so many great alternatives to their software (GNU/Linux, Mac OSX, Open Office, Mozilla, and the list keeps growing!).

great point, Steve, except

"Judge William Browning of the Senior US District Court in Tucson, Arizona, ruled yesterday that Microsoft encroached on patents owned by Research Corporation Technologies (RCT), a Tucson-based software company. "The judge has determined that Microsoft is guilty of patent infringement and that the technology is used in some of Microsoft's biggest products," said Brian Ferguson, an attorney representing RCT. RCT first filed suit against Microsoft in December 2001, alleging that the software giant used technology in Windows and Microsoft Office that's covered by RCT's patents for improving the quality of images displayed on both computer screens and printouts. "

and
"From what I've read, it sounds like there was some simmering dispute between Apple and Microsoft involving some patents that the Microsofties had allegedly violated. While there was apparently no litigation on the table involving these alleged violations, some could have eventually cropped up. The terms of this deal involve the cross-licensing of patents between Apple and Microsoft for the next five years. Some important things to note about this patent deal are..."

and

STAC ELECTRONICS, a California corporation, Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant.

...Mr. Gates met with Stac's President, Gary W. Clow, at the Fall Comdex-91 ceremony in Las Vegas. During a discussion which preceded the award ceremony, Mr. Gates said that Microsoft was considering including a data compression capability in the next release of MS-DOS. Mr. Gates further stated that Microsoft would not be developing this capability internally, but rather would seek to obtain another company's data compression technology for inclusion in MS-DOS. The Editor-in-Chief of PC Magazine, Michael J. Miller -- whose magazine would later that evening present its Technical Excellence Award to Stac -- told Mr. Gates before the ceremony began that STACKER was a first-rate product. Mr. Gates asked Mr. Clow to contact Microsoft after Mr. Clow returned to California, and Mr. Clow agreed.

16. In late 1991, as a result of Mr. Gates' interest, Mr. Brad Chase -- who was then Microsoft's Group Product Manager and who today is Microsoft's General Manager for MS-DOS -- and Mr. Clow began discussing the possibility of Microsoft licensing Stac's proprietary data compression technology for inclusion in future versions of the MS-DOS operating system.

17. During the ensuing months of negotiations, Microsoft proposed that Stac grant to Microsoft a world-wide license to incorporate STACKER data compression technology and know-how into future versions of its MS-DOS operating system software. Microsoft steadfastly refused, however, to offer to pay Stac any royalty for Stac's patented data compression technology.

18. Mr. Chase made it clear during the negotiations that Microsoft was considering including data compression capability in future versions of the MS-DOS operating system, and that if it were unable to reach an agreement with Stac, it would obtain this capability elsewhere, even though Microsoft believed -- as it told Stac on numerous occasions -- that STACKER was the best data compression product for the DOS market. When the subject of incorporating data compression technology other than Stac's arose, Mr. Clow reminded Mr. Chase and others that Stac owned patent rights to its data compression technology and would enforce its patents against any infringers. At least one draft agreement was provided to Microsoft that included a specific reference to Stac's '009 patent.

19. Microsoft attempted to persuade Stac that its proposal to incorporate Stac's proprietary data compression technology -- or, for that matter, any reliable data compression technology -- into the MS-DOS operating system would, if implemented, have an immediate and adverse effect on the viability of STACKER as an independently marketed product for the DOS market. Indeed, at one point during the negotiations, Microsoft presented Stac with a spreadsheet analysis purporting to detail the adverse impact on sales of STACKER -- Stac's flagship product -- in the event Microsoft and Stac failed to reach an agreement and Microsoft incorporated a different data compression utility in future versions of the MS-DOS operating system.

20. In approximately April of 1992, Stac broke off further discussions with Microsoft in light of Microsoft's failure to present a proposal that offered reasonable compensation to Stac for Microsoft's use of Stac's proprietary data compression technology.

21. In approximately June of 1992, Mr. Chase advised Mr. Clow that Microsoft was obtaining data compression technology for use in MS-DOS, but that Microsoft wanted to offer Stac one last chance to reach an agreement. In the ensuing discussions, it again became clear that Microsoft had no intention of paying any compensation to Stac in exchange for Stac's proprietary data compression technology. Discussions between Stac and Microsoft thereupon terminated for the second time.

22. Shortly thereafter, it became well known to the industry that a new version of its DOS operating system, MS-DOS version 6.0 (``MS-DOS 6.0"), would be released in the first six months of 1993 and that MS-DOS 6.0 would include a data compression utility, which Microsoft was to later call ``DoubleSpace.''

...

The very first post by robocoastie points out how a company like MS survives. Even though they are just a marketing company with poor products, most people own their stock. Please check to see how your retirement funds are invested. Chances are that your portfolio is heavy with Microsoft stock.

Damn you Google News! You scour the world looking for losers to post on our local newspaper threads.

Keep crying in your beer Linux-loving tards. MS pwnz!

Microsoft's eventual downfall is unavoidable thanks to open source software. There is nothing they can do to stop the significantly improved system for introducing new features into open source products. Open Source is the closest thing to a democratic software development model possible and it completely out maneuvers the tactics of closed source development. Where one has essentially unlimited access to talent across the globe (which includes many times people who also work in closed source companies like MS) the other can only call on a limited pool of people working in a somewhat adversarial fashion to develop software. I think this is the biggest failure of closed source that will always keep it behind open source no matter how much money is thrown at it. In a company, individuals are driven by three chief urges, to make money, to please bosses and/or to become the boss. This makes for a development environment that can never be consistently software focused as now intra business politics degrades from individual as well as group performance. In open source this contention simply doesn't exist, in fact it is replaced by another form of contention which is beneficial toward the project. Namely, the desire of programmers to have their work contribute in a positive way, to be respected among their peers for their contribution and to take part in a unique endeavor all point toward increasingly better software. If your code isn't up to snuff anyone examining it can foster ideas and changes that improve not only the project but also the cooperating developers. In a closed source system such interactions are sometimes detrimental to the project, slowing it down as people seek to save their skins from percieved drawbacks to having the quality of their work questioned in an open forum.

It's true that MS and other large software companies have tried in recent years to emulate the evolutionary nature of open sourced development but they can *never* achieve the same efficiency of a true open source model simply because they lack the physical mass of contributors, they lack a limitless pay capability to those contributors and most importantly they lack the ability to extricate intra company politics from the development.

I predict that over the next 10 years, open source projects will continue their extremely rapid advancement cycles and surpass the efficiencies built up over 30 years of closed source software offerings. Once this occurs, continued migration to open source software will cause an implosion in closed source methods barring a change to service based software models. (note MS is already heavily invested in this push as we speak they already have seen the writing on the wall) In terms of MS' vocal objections to open source projects as far as Linux is concerned, it's all hot air and they know it...obfuscation of the facts can at best slow down the Linux avalanche but will not stop it (and MS knows this) this is simply a stalling tactic for them to get their services push completely in place once their next OS is released in 2006/7 time frame. Once services are in place, licensing of software (in lieu of direct purchasing of it) can provide the revenue growth that a monster like MS needs to keep pleasing it's investors.

Of course this highlights another issue, that of the ever greedy corporation ..seeking ever larger profits....but that's the subject for another post.

sent

WOW. I guess everything evil is embodied in evil corporations like Microsoft. Why can't MS be more like the good guys...say IBM for example .

I love reading comments by socialists who thing everything should be free, businesses who innovate and make money are bad, and everyone who makes a buck should feel guilty. What a load of crap. Socialism and communism were tried in Europe and both have failed miserably.

I want to be rich. Money and wealth are good. The key thing about the US is that if you are smart and work hard, you can achieve. Apparently, some want to dumb us down to least common denominator of mediocrity.

.not and windoze sucks

Yes Grandpa, this is a local bulleting board, but we really haven't had any company for a while.

Cookies?!?

The patent system should be updated to prevent patent suits originating from the economically larger entity against a smaller entity. Patents' purpose is to encourage innovation and protect inventors ability to exploit inventions. To grant patent suitor rights to larger economic entities is somewhat futile because these large enterprises already have the capability to exploit their inventions.

The comments by sent2null are very insightful. Of course, seen in the light of the co-operative environment of open source it is but impossible for closed source development to outrun it. But, the one thing that is assumed in this situation is the altruistic intentions of the programmer/ group of programmers. Once it is known to the developer that he/she/they have something of great innovative value it is instinctive for them to seek out ways to maximize the profit they can get from peddling or licensing their wares and skill. In this regard I believe that they would seek out entities, corporate or otherwise, so advance their financial cause. This comes in direct conflict with the selfless intent mentioned before.

So, in certain cases it is possible for closed source entities to survive simply on capitalistic intent.

Of course, I'm not here to condone M$. I believe that integrating a browser into a desktop is a big security risk and an invitation for trouble. One can only hope that people take aversion to the EULA terms which insulate flawed software developers from legal action. This is something that can be forced by the efficiency of open source software.

Just my 2c.

Why is Microsoft sooo worried about Linux if Windows is sooo much better?

Are they worried that disappointed customers won't come back?

I honestly don't have any problem with Microsoft pursuing its patents, because it's all just power politics anyways. It's funny to see how all you linuxphiles out there complain about "centers of power" when red hat is busily selling its soul to the government of China.

I honestly don't have any problem with Microsoft pursuing its patents, because it's all just power politics anyways. It's funny to see how all you linuxphiles out there complain about "centers of power" when red hat is busily selling its soul to the government of China.

bill gates can lick this----> http://www.goat.cx

Mr Lopez quotes the Bible incorrectly. He states "the love of money is the root of all evil" when in fact the Bible says in 1 Tim 6:10 "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil" (NIV).

A subtle difference but an important one. It is A root not THE root.

That said, I don't hate MS or other big companies, after all they provide most of the innovation in technology and they employ a lot of people. Yes, perhaps Bill Gates makes more money than any one person deserves, but so do a lot of professional ahtletes, singers, movie stars etc.

I think we need more stringent review of the things they are patenting. I thought that to receive a patent and idea or product needed to be discernably different and non-obvious. I would think that things like navigating a browser with a keyboard would fail to meet those criteria.

This is for you, Neil0311.

I'm a socialist. Don't imagine that all of us take the word as a pejorative.
I've been a socialist for more years than I care to tell you, more than a
quarter of a century.

I was a Linux kernel contributor in 1992. I wish I had a dime for every
naysayer comment I've read since then. Linux was never even supposed to
survive to the point of being a full-blown Unix kernel. I guess a lot of
people should be eating crow by now. I doubt they are, though - they wanna
get rich too, from Linux if possible.

I'm also a born-again, fundamentalist Christian. You don't have to be, but
I do believe that money and wealth are EVIL. There are two words in the
original Greek for the New Testament that properly translate to "capitalism",
and another that properly translates to "communism". I'll let you figure
out, if you care to, how Jesus and the authors of the New Testament felt
about the issue. It shouldn't be a mystery to anyone who can READ.

Oh, I also have a Ph.D. in Computer Science. Haven't made a dime for the
last 2 years, having gotten tied up in legal battles by wanna-be MSes who
didn't want me to make money from my own software.

And one more thing. My productivity has been documented at more than 100
times that of the average developer. Think it helps me to be so productive?
Think again. The IP laws in this country have no "checks and balances" that
protect individuals from frivolous legal onslaughts by lesser companies that
are scared of them.

You're no Albert Einstein, Neil0311. Einstein was a socialist, just like me.

Socialism is what made America great, and saved it from the excesses of
capitalism at least once if not more. Think about it, if you can figure
out that 'free market' in the context of capitalism is an OXYMORON.

IP law does need to be revised. Back to its original intent - to protect
the public interest, by protecting the interests of individual innovators.
It does just the opposite now, and THAT is the secret to Microsoft's success.

My motto these days is "three strike, you're public domain." It certainly
applies to Microsoft. And there is certainly legal room for a government
to take over corporations that violate the public interest so blatantly.

Good luck trying to get rich, Neil0311. You have a harder row to hoe than
you might imagine. And your attitude just causes problems for the rest of
us.

This is just part of the marketing - and this is what the world can learn from MS: its all in the marketing. Marketing "conditions" the buyers and MS has done this over a few decades now and are very good at it.

Small companies with defendable patents need to wise up and sell those patents to someone who will pursue if they dont have the resources to fit MS. It pains me to see all these discussions and moans and bleats when there are some very good avenues for the business savvy patent holder to beat the S*#T out of Microsoft. Look at the record - companies have taken on MS and won over the years including a few this year.

For the record I think that MS has a very good products. Im very fond of Notepad and Explorer as a file manager. Dont like anything else except for the base Windows OS (when it works). FYI now I use a G4 Powerbook with Mac OSX running OpenOffice and Notes as my main working environment and use LiteStep as the UI for WinXP on my other machine for work. By choice I use Win2K at home for my children and Linux for myself. To put into perspective Im a professional services director for a ecommerce software implementation team of 8.

Its these sounds bites, however inaccurate, that freeze CTO's, CIO like a deer in a headlight. At that level, they are often too ill-equipt to make informed decisions.

1 Timothy 6:10: "For _capitalism_ is the root of all kinds of evil."

What is usually translated "the love of money" is a single word, _philarguria_,
which occurs only once in the New Testament. It literally means "affection
for silver." "Silver" was idiom for "property" in those days. Look up
"capitalism" in your Webster's - it's about "affection for property", in no
uncertain terms.

Matthew 6:24: "You cannot serve both God and _capitalism_."

What is usually translated "Mammon" in this verse is a word that actually
means "wealth deified", or "wealth served" (in a governmental sense).

And consider Acts 2:42,44-45. The word usually translated "fellowship",
_koinonia_, literally means "having all things shared in common". Again,
check your Webster's - that's _communism_, a form of socialism.

It's not Soviet socialism that capitalists are afraid of - it's New
Testament socialism, which is correctly termed communism.

And by the way, the parable of the talents, the parable of the ten minas,
and other such passages, are NOT evidence that Jesus was endorsing capitalism.
These were expressions of what is now considered the first part of the
Marxist creed (Marx borrowed liberally from the New Testament) - "From each
according to his ability, to each according to his need."

As a programmer I kind of like to be paid for the work I do. In an open source world who's going to right all those new killer apps for free?

Thank you sir, May I have another?

As a long time Linux user, I don't hate M$ because they make money (nothing wrong with that), rather I hate the METHODS they use to make money. This is a combination of bullying & stupidity.

This includes using their OS monopoly to force computer makers to leave out competitors products (Netscape is one example) or lose their discount on the copies of M$ Windows they include with each computer they sell.

Deliberately distorting web standards to make competitors products render pages "optimized for Internet Explorer" inncorrectly.

Intergrating their web browser into the windows operating system despite how easy it makes it for an attacker to get into a system (Active X).

The list goes on and on (use google for more).

Recap: Making money good. Making money by breaking the rules, bad.

Toadman, who says you can code?

Microsoft can afford to take large security risks because they hold a large majority of the OS software market in the palm of their hands.

In my humble opinion, the fall of Microsoft will not be caused by the open source community.

In order to develop an OS that will be able to spark the downfall of MS, you need a conglomeration of quality developers not only for generating the source, but also for making it user friendly and economical for the *entire* market to use. The Golden OS, which will cause the destruction of MS, will have the stability, power, and cross-platform capabilities of UNIX/Linux and the ease-of-use Windows.

To develop the Golden OS, I believe it will take a corporation with strong programmers, careful and precise research, and capital. The open source community has tons of brilliant programmers with a good security reputation, but not much else.

Currently, the open source community is like a beehive without a queen. In order to be trully successfull, it needs direction. A corporation will find it easier to find direction than will the open source community.

Thanks, locals, for sharing this nice forum with the world.

Comments that lead or plead with emotion indicate a lack of normal development. No one with any degree of maturity will take them seriously and they become like static overlaying interesting information.

This is for you, Neil0311.

I'm a socialist. Don't imagine that all of us take the word as a pejorative.
I've been a socialist for more years than I care to tell you, more than a
quarter of a century.

I was a Linux kernel contributor in 1992. I wish I had a dime for every
naysayer comment I've read since then. Linux was never even supposed to
survive to the point of being a full-blown Unix kernel. I guess a lot of
people should be eating crow by now. I doubt they are, though - they wanna
get rich too, from Linux if possible.

I'm also a born-again, fundamentalist Christian. You don't have to be, but
I do believe that money and wealth are EVIL. There are two words in the
original Greek for the New Testament that properly translate to "capitalism",
and another that properly translates to "communism". I'll let you figure
out, if you care to, how Jesus and the authors of the New Testament felt
about the issue. It shouldn't be a mystery to anyone who can READ.

Oh, I also have a Ph.D. in Computer Science. Haven't made a dime for the
last 2 years, having gotten tied up in legal battles by wanna-be MSes who
didn't want me to make money from my own software.

And one more thing. My productivity has been documented at more than 100
times that of the average developer. Think it helps me to be so productive?
Think again. The IP laws in this country have no "checks and balances" that
protect individuals from frivolous legal onslaughts by lesser companies that
are scared of them.

You're no Albert Einstein, Neil0311. Einstein was a socialist, just like me.

Socialism is what made America great, and saved it from the excesses of
capitalism at least once if not more. Think about it, if you can figure
out that 'free market' in the context of capitalism is an OXYMORON.

IP law does need to be revised. Back to its original intent - to protect
the public interest, by protecting the interests of individual innovators.
It does just the opposite now, and THAT is the secret to Microsoft's success.

My motto these days is "three strike, you're public domain." It certainly
applies to Microsoft. And there is certainly legal room for a government
to take over corporations that violate the public interest so blatantly.

Good luck trying to get rich, Neil0311. You have a harder row to hoe than
you might imagine. And your attitude just causes problems for the rest of
us.

toadman - ever hear of the "labor theory of value"? (google for it...)

Who owns code and who gets paid for supporting/maintaining it are two
different questions. Capitalists tend to struggle with this kind of
separation - I've had users of my software in fact complain that I
didn't have the right to be paid once I've "given away" my software
for free.

The truth is that open software is still _owned_ by its respective
authors; it just carries the licensing condition that money can't
be charged for using it AS IS and WITHOUT WARRANTY. If such software
carries a GPL-style license, modifications carry the same conditions
(as so-called derivative works). But NOTHING prevents a programmer
from making support or maintenance revenue - except the reticence of
a capitalist customer base, that is...

Study IP law if you'd like to know more. Start with Article I Section
8 Clause 8 of the US Constitution, which is the source of IP law in
the US.

A problem that is very real now is one the so-called Utopian Socialists
foresaw in the early 1800's - that technology-assisted productivity would
get so high that human labor, beginning with "information workers", would
start to plummet in value. That's happening now. And it's not Linux'
fault, either, it's due to the widespread adoption of computers and
computer technology across the board.

With a Ph.D. in Computer Science, I have to compete with high-school
dropouts even for jobs at McDonald's, because employers consider my
skills both related, and superfluous. This is exactly the situation
the Utopians were concerned about. I.e., it's not outsourcing that's
stealing IT jobs - it's the productivity of technology as a more
general phenomenon.

Good lord you bleeding hearts are idiots.

1. Microsoft is probably the greatest company ever conceived. The fact that they're the number one company in their industry should tell you something: they do business right.

2. All of this bleeding heart nonsense about the evils of money and business is just that: nonsense. The only people who complain about people who make money are those who are too incompetent to make money.

3. Patents exist for a reason: so no one can dilute your work. Microsoft has just as much right to protect its patents in a free market economy as any other entity. If Linux is violating patents in the name of "open source" then it has only itself to blame and it will soon pay the price for its mistake.

4. There's nothing wrong with having a monopoly on your industry IF you've earned it the way Microsoft has. They have 90% of the desktop market because everyone recognizes Microsoft is the best operating system developer ever. If Windows was crap, no one would use it. Stop bellyaching because you pet no-name OS isn't at the top of the heap. Everything Microsoft has done to gain dominance is fair and ethical. End of story.

A. Mahoney - Linux proved you wrong a LONG time ago. You're exactly
the kind of naysayer to whom I was referring.

Markets are not motivations, they're mechanisms. The global open-source
community is a rich and thriving market. But it happens to be one which
is neither driven by the profit motive nor impeded by the lack of specific
global organization, any more than any other 'free market' is so impeded.

The motivation for open source was a concern for the public interest, and
that's a motivation that has increased, not diminished.

Capitalists who naysay socialism should pay closer attention - it's full
of counterexamples for many of your basic premises.

rfjason - you need to go study the notion of "monopoly".

Most people use MS products because THEY HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE.

Perhaps it's John who needs to go study the notion of monopoly.

Most people use Microsoft because it's just fine. You don't want Microsoft? Go buy a whitebox, or one of those Linspire machines, or a Mac, or a Sun, or whatever else you want. The choices are there.

Don't give me that crap about having no other choice. To suggest it is to show just how incredibly idiotic you are.

Or, let's look at monopolies another way.

Mac & Cheese is almost universally made with one type of pasta and one type of cheese. Everywhere you go, every brand you buy, it's all basically the same.

Does this mean that the elbow macaroni and cheddar cheese manufacturers have a monopoly on the Mac & Cheese market? No. It just means that it's a popular food combination that consumers demand.

Same thing with Microsoft. Windows dominates the market because consumers provide a demand for it. Plain and simple.

And just a quick notion about socialism - IT is the true evil of the world, not capitalism. Socialism destroys people by enslaving them to one ideology, one master, and one purpose. Capitalism frees people by allowing them to pursue their own goals in their own way, with no restriction on achievement or how the rewards for that achievement are spent. Hmm, what do I want: freedom or slavery?

And and especially big "reality check" to fundamentalist christians who believe in socialism: lets remember that socialism and communism seek to wipe out all forms of religion and worship. It's bad enough that you insist on believing in superstition without believing in a system that threatens to wipe out that very same superstition you hold dear.

Like I said. Bleeding hearts = idiots.

rfjason... My dear aunt who wants to do nothing but read blogs and send
emails, is in a state of technology terror right now. Her computer is
running Windows 95. She can't get it updated to a point where it doesn't
collect every MS-borne email virus that ever existed. She wants to
replace it with Linux...

But she's in Atlanta, GA, and I'm in Ohio. I can't do it for her. I can't
afford even a 50$ refurb box to set up for her, nor can she.

Microsoft doesn't need her as a customer; probably doesn't want her as a
customer - what revenue opportunity would she represent?

I can't get a job because I refuse to lie about my qualifications, and there's
this practice called "best fit hiring" that's prevalent now that sends people
like me out to pasture at a young age, not in spite of our success, but
because of it.

There's that old saying, rfjason, "There but for the grace of God go I."

It applies to you too.

I'm not bellyaching. I'm not angry. But I'm also not an idiot.

I wouldn't call you one either, but I might call you a wishful thinker.

Oh, I've used nothing but Linux since 1992 and as far as I can tell, I've
never had a computer virus...

The issue is not what people like me can do; it's what the average computer
user can do. The average user has no choice. They don't even have the choice
to use nothing at all, since their jobs depend on it.

My next-younger sister is a pediatrician. Her clinic (which services an
inner-city low-income population) recently implemented an electronic medical
records (EMR) system. She was already working inhumane hours; she now has
to stay late every single day to update records on a Windows system, that
she used to be able to update during the day before. She doesn't have time
for a good night's sleep.

She has always HATED computers. You'd think a medical doctor would be free
to choose whether or not to have their life run by a computer. She used to
have that choice. She doesn't anymore. And there's nothing she can do about
it.

This unfounded belief in open source is not only moronic, buy hysterically overstated.

For starters, the open source movement isn't nearly as organized or powerful as people think. Open source contribution is scattered, erratic, and just as bug prone as anything an organized development produces.

Case in point: Mozilla had 12 different "critical" security patches to its browser this year. It's every bit as buggy and unsecure as Internet Explorer. The only difference is that Internet Explorer supports dozens more features and a far superior user interface than Mozilla. If IE were to scale itself down to Mozilla's paltry abilities, you'd see about 12 security updates a year for IE as well.

Open source maniacs don't document, don't follow coding standards, and give no thought to usability. There's no uniformity, clarity, or consensus to the open source community.

Case in point: look at SourceForge. If you want to download a piece of software you're generally relegated to downloading four to six different pieces, writing a config file yourself, then compiling the material together, and testing for the next several hours to find out why your compile didn't work. While this may be a geek paradise, it's a living hell for the real world. No regular user is going to go through the hurdles of multiple downloads, configurations and testing. Open source, especially the folks at SourceForge, are not ready for primetime, and are their own worst enemies.

Open Source is just as much an exclusivity club as any other group. Don't bother asking for help from a linux geek. You might as well ask for cooperation from the French. Linux and other open source elitists actively DISCOURAGE any open source software that's easy to use, turns a profit, or doesn't adhere to their blurry vision of what software development should be.

Case in point: Linux user groups frequently disparage Linux builds like Linspire and Lycoris because it doesn't fit their view of what Linux should be. The appeal of Linspire is obvious: an easy to use, compatible operating system for the masses for a reasonable price. And Linux geeks can't stand the idea of their precious operating system getting into the hands of non-expert users. Naturally, they then turn around and damn everyone for using Windows and not Linux. Sorry weirdos, you can't have it both ways.

All in all, the mindset of the open source community is so self-destructive it's amazing that it hasn't imploded. But then, when you're a cult unto yourself, you can sustain your pet ideas indefinitely as long as you recruit new sheep for the flock.

all that was was a whole bunch of FUD

I hate Steve Ballmer with a passion. I am a die-hard Linux user, but I can admit that Bill Gates is an intelligent person. Steve Ballmer on the other hand is a big fat puppet, not capable of thinking on his own, constantly citing one sided studies that mean NOTHING.

We can all sit around and talk about Microsofts monopoly all day long, (and maybe complain about it the rest of our lives), or we can do something about it. I think a good way to familiarize the general population with Linux would be to give away the portable versions like Knoppix. Just let people try them out. Make a bunch of copies and hand them out to people in crowded areas.

rfjason - I got you scared, didn't I?

The very terms "socialism" and "capitalism" originated in the Christian
church.

The "kingdom of heaven" to which Jesus constantly refers in the New Testament
is nothing other than socialism. It was in fact a democratic socialism,
enabled by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on _all flesh_.

You probably think markets are a good thing; so do I; in fact, I find them
indispensible. But markets don't equate to capitalism. Again, markets are
mechanisms; the question of capitalism vs. socialism is one of motivation.

You think you're free; you have to assume away a lot of the world around
you to reach that conclusion. I know about slavery; I'm an African-American.
We have plenty of economic slavery here and now.

My sister tells the story of a mother who brought in a sick child, who she
diagnosed. She wrote out a prescription and handed it to her. The mother
glared at my sister. "What's wrong?" In tears, the mother asked, "what am
I supposed to do with this?" She didn't have health insurance, and she
didn't have any money to fill a prescription. But her child needed the
medicine.

Bleeding heart? Fine. So was Jesus. The gospel wasn't to get greedy
rich people saved, it was _to the poor_. Mea culpa, rfjason.

Now call me something that we can both agree is bad, that I also care about.

Even if I believed in the easter bunny hard enough, I still wouldn't get eggs in my backyard. Stop deluding yourself about God. He ain't out there. Get off your butt, and take responsibility for yourself instead of praying to blank wall for salvation.

Screw your dear aunt. If she can't afford a new computer for $300 (free shipping) from Dell then she is, what we rational people like say, "out of luck." It's not Microsoft's responsibility that she can't buy a computer because the old one can't keep up.

And why are you bothering to tell me that you can't get a job? I don't care that you're unemployed or unemployable. That's your problem. Take responsibility for yourself and deal with it. Don't come crying to me begging for sympathy and understanding for something that's your own fault.

The truth is, every user has a choice. They have a choice to educate themselves or not. They have a choice to look at a magazine and see an add for a Mac or not. They have a choice to go to the neighbor geek boy next door and ask his opinion or not. The only people who "don't have a choice" are the incompetents of the world who refuse to do any learning whatsoever to understand what's around them. The entire notion of "no choice" is a whitewash for the denial of being STUPID.

Why would anyone write a virus for Linux, or Mac? When you're a nut job seeking massive levels of disruption, you go for the broadest channel of distribution: Windows. Hackers don't write win32 viruses because Microsoft is evil, they do it because Microsoft is a logical target. If this was a parallel universe where Linux was dominant in the world, every hacker would be writing linux viruses.

And as for your sister, she needs to update her skills, or go get a different job. She's not doing herself or anyone else any favors by destroying herself because she can't keep up. Remind me not to go to her clinic. The last thing I need is an incompetent filing clerk falling asleep on the job and screwing up my records because she's too incompetent to use a computer.

Really, knock off the bleeding heart nonsense, John. You're not proving your case any better by demonstrating how incompetent and lowlife your family is. You want to do some good? Get your act together and get out there and compete like everyone else. Don't blame a successful entity for your failure as a human being.

rfjason: With ideas like yours I'm just glad you're on the left hand side of the Atlantic.

Let's assume there are 2 sorts of bread, white and brown, and you don't like brown bread. Microloaf who make all the brown bread buy out Microbun who make all the white bread and immediately cease production. Does this mean that you will cease to eat bread, or will you switch to eating biscuits or the like or will you give way and start eating white bread because of it's widespread availability ?
I suspect you're not over intelligent so I'll spell it out: white bread = Microshit.

The entire notion of God and Jesus is based on a single book that's been translated and rewritten more times than can be accounted for. Today's bible is a bastardization of ideas that are so distorted you have no clue what the original scripture was.

Other than this book, there is no singular reason to believe in a God or a prophet or a kingdom of salvation.

Christianity, like all religion, is a tool of oppression that is used SOLELY by those who know they're at the bottom of the social totem pole and make demands of productive people instead of taking responsibility for themselves. It routinely calls for sacrifice. And where there's sacrifice, there's someone receiving the sacrifice. It is a book of masters and slaves where the masters have no virtue and no worth, but use guilt and manipulation to trick intelligent, powerful people into serving their needs. It is a destructive philosophy.

Everytime you base your notions of need and value and right and wrong on a manipulative, destructive system you debase yourself and fail to make any impression on me. Cite everything you want from the Bible to prove your points. The Bible is a lie, and from it, so is everything you say and believe in.

As for the mother with the sick child: I feel sorry for the child. I am sorry that the child was stuck with an incompetent parent that couldn't care for the life she wilfully brought into the world. That's an example of a mother who hates her child. Instead of doing the right thing and giving the child up to responsible, productive people who could provide adequate care for the child, she keeps the child for herself and subjects it to horrible conditions for some undefinable, unfathomable reason. She forces the child to suffer because she doesn't have the simple decency to admit she's a failure, and give the child up to someone who actually cares.

Your Bible extoles this woman and her crime. I condemn her for the vile wretch she is.

rfjason, I used to be an atheist.

I hope he doesn't do to you what he did to me (and to the Apostle Paul).

I know God exists more than I know I exist.

And I don't have to look far for evidence.

Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I don't believe the physical
either can or should have to provide evidence of the spiritual; to the
contrary, as Descartes observed, only the spiritual can provide evidence
of the physical, not the other way around.

I'm not your responsibility, rfjason. Not directly. But a intelligent
and civilized person would realize the the benefits of civilized society
imply responsibilities for individual citizens of such societies. If
you don't agree, that's your privilege. But there are names for people
who feel as you apparently do, and they're not good names.

As for Linux and viruses - ever take an OS course? There are technical
reasons Linux and other Unix variants are not as prone to viruses. Yes,
hackers go after Windows because it is a big target, but it is also an
easy target.

Back in the early days of Windows, I was a licensed Windows OEM developer.
I was given full Windows source in exchange for an NDA (non-disclosure
agreement). I knew about its flaws then; I still have a good idea about
them now. And it's pretty basic stuff, from an OS perspective. There are
good reasons Windows is technically prone to hacking, even when hackers
don't have full source for it.

My sister is a saint, rfjason, in the true sense of the word. She has a
reward waiting for her in heaven. You have nothing to look forward to.

Don't die anytime soon, OK?

Let's assume there are 2 sorts of bread, white and brown, and you don't like brown bread. Microloaf who make all the brown bread buy out Quote:

Microbun who make all the white bread and immediately cease production. Does this mean that you will cease to eat bread, or will you switch to eating biscuits or the like or will you give way and start eating white bread because of it's widespread availability ?

Answer: buy Mac bread. Or ask your baker friend what he would do. Don't blame Microbun for a buyout. Blame Brownbun for allowing itself to be sold.

Quote:

I suspect you're not over intelligent.

Answer:

That's what all the cavemen said to the first caveman who brought them fire. It's impossible for a person like you to recognize intelligence beyond yourself, so I can't fault you for performing the modern day equivalent of throwing your monkey poo at me.

rfjason, why is it so important for you to attack my intelligence?

Man does not live by bread alone, rfjason, ... but that's from the
Bible, let me not go there. 8^)

I don't claim any intelligence, rfjason. I'm not claiming it to
say I have a Ph.D. in Computer Science, since I consider most of
my best ideas to have been the result of direct inspiration (as
do people like Ben Carson, one of the most renowned pediatrians
in the world). I'm not going to argue intelligence with you or
anyone else, because I don't claim any.

If you don't want to believe in a God, I support you in taking that
position for yourself. Again, I was an atheist once upon a time,
and I didn't want Christians badgering me when I was.

It's really too bad that John clingly so tightly to his misguided beliefs.

John claims that the unknowable proveds the knowable. Let's think about this for a second: if you can't know it, how do you know it's there? You create a contradiction in what you're trying to prove.

John claims he knows there's a God because he "knows it more than he knows he's alive." Interesting. Paranoid schizophrenics KNOW they're being followed, but that doesn't mean they are.

Here's a tip for John: I can MAKE you feel God. It's true. With a simple electrical stimulation to a region of your prefrontal cortex, I can make you have a religious experience. I can make you feel God anytime I want. If I destroy that section of your brain, I destroy your sense of God. Much like a schizo -- your ideas about the lord are nothing more than a series of conditions inside your own brain.

Now then, back to technology. As a matter of fact, the whole reason Windows is susceptible to hacking is the same reason Linux is susceptible to hacking: C programmers. Instead of letting the OS manage memory, they insist on opening and handling memory blocks themselves. And, like all slovenly, disgusting, unprincipled C programmers, they don't take the time to check their work for holes. This happens just as much on the Linux front as it does the Windows front. Pundits like John just like to attack Windows because it's easy to pick on the big guy. It's not so easy to criticize one's own work.

And as for your saintly sister, isn't it your own book that teaches you everyone is a sinner from birth, just for being born? It's a little hard for your sister to be this saint you claim if she's already a sinner. It's too bad she wastes her life in such a self-destructive manner and believes in it so thoroughly.

By the way, rfjason, I don't know if you've ever heard of Plato's Cave.

You can google for it.

If John doesn't have any intelligence (which I would agree with), why is he complaining that I'm attacking his intelligence?

The spiritual is unknowable? Did I write that? Don't think so.

You entirely missed my point, rfjason.

And did I write "alive" or "exist"?

You missed it there, too, rfjason.

As for memory management, rfjason, you're showing your ignorance - you're
obviously not a programmer who has worked on kernel-level memory management
code. I have. Be careful what you say.

Ever hear of "hermenuetics", rfjason? Ever hear the words "eisegesis" or
"exegesis"?

Look them up. Learn how to read the writings of other people respectfully.

Just wanted to clarify, monopolies *are* generally considered bad by most economists. A free market generally creates the lowest prices and highest quantity produced, while in a monopoly it's the opposite. The extra cost of a monopoly is referred to as dead weight lost, a huge loss of potential wealth....

Now as to whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly, I'd say it is. It's virtually impossible to break into the OS market, even with all the linuxphiles out there.

rfjason, yr president is a Christian

And if John bothered to actually do his research, he would find that Plato's Cave is a contradiction.

rfjason

I would love it if you did just a little more research before trolling the internet.

1) by my estimate of the postings on the cert (us computer emergency readiness team) internet explorer has over 120 open vulnerabilities. The mozilla browsers based on the geck engine have 10.

this isn't becuase IE is more popular, this isn't becuase Firefox is open sourced. It comes down to a fundemental difference in the philosophy of developing software. While Firefox was created un der the presuposition that security was the main issue. IE was created obviously with flagrent disregard for this.

The fact that IE is integrated into windows makes every one of those IE vulnerabilties a windows vulnerability, and entire OS gapping bug hole.

Of course that could have been circumvented if windows had been developed on a philosophy of security, but instead the methods by which one can switch from root user, to an average user are so teidious that most users run as admin.

not to mention, that the 10 high risk bugs that were reported to the mozilla projects were all fixed within 24 hours of their release, and made available easily through automatic update features. IE has a monthly bug fix date, whose glaring problems have been made evident in the lates jpeg hole, that was found a day after the monthly IE bug fix... leaving IE vulnerable for a month while users waited for a fix.

2) Intelectual property laws aren't currently working like you think they are. I think all but the most radical of us agree that those who create code should own their creation. However MS and others are filing patents for things they clearly didn't create, but have yet to be pattented. Many of these creations were put into the world free of patents for a reason, and some of the MS claims are as rediculous as filing patents for the sudo command, a classic *nix command.

This coupled with the ludicrous Idea that when working for a company that company owns the products of your mind during that time. Makes IP a clear source of many ethical conflicts. How can on extort the right to privacy while making laws that claim that companies can own what goes on in your mind.

3) You've confused all your socio-politacal terms, and obviously have little background in the study of such. You've confused socialism, communism, and capitalism, with all sorts of other things. You've somehow related socialism to the political systems that developed out of the communist movements of the early parts of the century, and somehow related capitalism to the political communities of the western world. Where in fact these connections don't exist except by historical refrence.

If you had studied this material you would know that communism was a form of anarchism...that libertarianism is a form of anarchism... and that many of the republican party make a basis for their understandings of rights and privledges from the libertrians. Does this make the current american system communist?...no.

you would also know that there are and were few socialists that went so far as to debunk capitalism. Rather they sought to intergrate capitalism and social theories in such a way that the negative effects of pure capitalism (that is an enormous class and wealth gap) could be mediated to provide for the less fortunate. And those that did attempt to debunk capitalism did so with a profound understanding for what makes people tick, and rather than remove and idea of getting rewards for your labor, they sought to shift the focus from getting money and OWNing things, to getting rewards for your labor, and sharing in creation.

Anyways, I know this won't help you, and that you'll continue to think that microsoft is a benevolent giant.

but if you had bothered to do your research, you wouldn't sound like so much of a knucklehead.

Sincerely
Anders

(an anarchist, aetheist, linux, using, firefox browsing, never had a virus, math majoring, political philosohy student)

Way to whip out the big words there, John.

Sadly, everything you continue to throw at me still germinates from your irrational belief in a 2,000 year old fictional story.

How can I be expected to respect a book that advocates the subjugation of one people for the needs of another because a superstition commands it?

And, just for clarification, I think I see your points quite clearly. They're no different than the points of the brainless masses who came before you and failed to proove any truth. So you're welcome to attack me because I didn't use the precise words you used. But you and I both know where you're coming from, even if you don't want to admit it publicly. You're a cultist and a participant in oppression.

"Just wanted to clarify, monopolies *are* generally considered bad by most economists."

In a related story, 95% of Harvard graduates in a study said that the reason the Earth has different seasons is because the Earth has an elliptical or off-center orbit.

Just because a majority of people say one thing, it doesn't make that one thing true.

my God what a heated discussion this has turned into. I think we really shouldn't bring religion into all this. i'm a christian and i still think, John, that your sister and your argument is misguided--if she were using linux, she would similarly be keying in records all night long. it's the SOFTWARE, not the platform's fault. and claiming that you KNOW all of window's troubles, since so long ago, means nothing because (1) assuming it's true, you couldn't have looked through it all and (2) Windows in 1992 has scarcely ANYTHING to do with Windows now.

i'm not denying that microsoft's bullying tactics helped get them to where they are now, but lets be frank--ANY business does it and hey, the economy is doing just fine. someguy: stop your racism. India is doing just fine and Americans love money and success as much as any Indian. you might say capitalism is doomed and socialism is the way to go. sure--that's what Marx says as far as i know (not much, i must admit). but ever thought that it is a continuing cycle? a purely socialist country would forever be stuck in the status quo--do you really think that's good? some injustice, some sacrifice, must be made for the sake of progress. you can go to live in an amish farm (no offence) if you wish, but please don't insist everyone else does it.

and the point about dumbing down patents is idiotic. patents exist to protect intellectual property. how in hell are you going to draw the line if you say "oh, a little company can break patents" and "a big company can't patent their products". what's a BIG or LITTLE company? how are you going to pour in the resources to make something work? don't even think linux is always the innovator and not microsoft--think about it, many linux shells look just like Windows. can you believe the amount of GUI development and testing time and cash that Microsoft is losing when any open-source person can just rip it off? OK, so Microsoft used other people's ideas too--Xerox got the first GUI, and its most basic principles, up--but do you think it was open source? nope, not in the least! Microsoft is not morally superior, but they're not morally worse either. it's interesting to note that copyrights only extend to the EXACT OBJECT--not to derivatives. this is because the law recognises innovation often comes from imitation, and because there's just no "fair" solution to these problems. patents on the other hand extend to anything possibly included in their wording--if you think they're ridiculous, blame the patents office, not Microsoft. it takes money and effort to reach innovation and it's NOT fair for anyone to use it for free, unless the innovator wishes it to be so. whether he does or does not is his OWN choice--insistence on one or the other makes you no better than the strictest communist dictator.

It's too bad Anders sounds like every other naive just-walked-out-of-my-professors-socioeconomicpoliticalmetaphysical-brainwash-class dittohead and can't think for himself.

1. Firefox is not built around security. It's a pet project of a bunch of volunteers who can't get real jobs. The security line is a marketing tactic designed to specifically garner attention away from IE users.

2. Intellectual Property laws work perfectly. The fact that they don't work the way YOU want them to is no reason to denounce them. When you write code for a company, the company owns the code. Not you. Just like when you make a doll for a toy company, the company owns the doll. Not you.

3. And here's where it all comes out. Anders tries to explain away the pure evils that communism and socialism and every other form of collectivism represent. Just because my facts don't mesh with your brainwashing doesn't mean that I didn't study. In fact, I'm willing to wager that I have a far superior grasp on how this world works by the fact that I'm successful, and despite you still being just a student, your philosophical inclination will prevent you from ever achieving anything.

But, please, if it makes you feel better to throw stones people smarter than you so that you don't have to face the reality that your mind denies, then be my guest.

I would just like to point out that every one of the 10 mozilla bugs on cert has been fixed already.

Anders

And if mozilla had as many features and compatibility requirements, that "10" would quickly be "100" and it would take just about as along as Microsoft for Mozilla fix.

Let's not forget that IE is ten times the browser Mozilla is.

I am an isomist. I don't believe in anything but that. However, I begin to believe in another: If I ever met and found who rfjson is I will cut him into pieces and give him to the crows for being what he is. Good it is not inclusive 'him'. He should not have even been born.

Anders - you're my kinda guy. 8^)

Whether or not communism is a form of socialism or a form of anarchism
depends, I suppose, on one's perspective, but I can see how you arrive
there. Frankly, I was the only atheist I've ever known who didn't also
consider himself an anarchist. I respect your opinion here, though I
disagree. The disagreements I would have are way outside the scope of
this topic.

David - I agree with your early point. My Ph.D. research was HCI -
ANY computer system would have had the effect it had on my sister's
clinic - I didn't make that point in the interest of brevity. The
larger point is that when a culture of technology use goes further
than the technology can truly support, there are mismatches like this
that will happen - it's not even the software's fault; it's because
technology isn't what buyers think it is.

rfjason - I think you do believe in a God - yourself. That's cool.
I just hope you can live up to that if push comes to shove.

By the way, IE originated from the same open source code as did
Mozilla.

Oh, rfjason - I didn't comment on Plato's Cave, except to refer you to
it. Frankly, I just thought you'd find it interesting, since you were
making up stories about people in caves.

hmmmm features... start listing some features that IE has that firefox lacks (on a side not to go along with your continued confusion of terms, I speak only for the firefox browser which is not the same as mozilla). Because as far as I can tell, firefox corectly impliments css (which ie doesn't do), firefox correctly impliments html (which ie doesn't do), firefox has the web development toolbar, an irc chat client, tabs, web-dev toolbar that lets you edit webpages in line in real time, ad-blocking, pop-up blocking, built in google search, dictionary sear, and anysearch term you wish to add, firefox has flash, macromedia flash, quicktime, and ms media player support. I could go on...

It seems that in my broad range of uses that firefox only lack active X. Which admitedly is the source of many of IE's vulnerabilities. So if by the "really buggy, poorly implimented security risk" feature...then yeah...you're right... firefox does lack that.

Anders

My what an interesting thread! Should I dismiss John's arguments because he is a religious person and therefore shouldn't be listened to? Naw, I think I'll dismiss rjjason's arguments because he is a right wing asshole.

rfjason, somebody like you who believes poor people should be hated for having children just isn't qualified to participate in a discussion involving ethics. Sorry, man. I think you should be reduced to poverty so you could learn a thing or two about how most of humanity lives.

I'm a relative newbie. I didn't get my own pc until 1997. I didn't know you had to defrag a pc until 2001. My isp is aol. When my pc goes down it's "broke". But over the past few years I've become something of a "Junior Geek" or "Associate Geek" and I have known about open source software only in the past year. I love the concept and use the best known OSS with Firefox. I've observed this feud between the closed vs the opens with quite a lot of interest. Here are my thoughts:
1. As rich and powerful as Bill Gates is he deserves most of it due to the fact that his company took computing to the masses. He made the computer user friendly by taking away the command prompts of yesteryear. Baldhead cripple or crazy, people ages 8 to eighty can use a pc with relative ease due to windows. I think it's rather pricey, but it's an "added value" thing.
2. Open source types don't appear to be so rich or powerful because it seems to be about the code and pure funtionality of that code not profits. They seem to want to be famous within the coding community. Which when done right is not a bad thing.
3. Microsoft is a capitalist tool pure and simple.They have stockholders who've risked their capital and whose interest they have to protect, therefore they are required to protect every intelectual proprty right down to the last dime.
4. The beauty of open source is that it has no owners, just a thousand daddies. I will never make a dime off my daughter butwill never be prouder. That's the same with open source.
5. Open Source in my opinion can make a mark in our computer economy if it does the follow (a)become more user friendly,by becoming more standardized, friendly, simple interfaces, and ease of installation. I know a lot of what I'm saying sounds like MS themselves but you got to get past the "hardcore" computer person and become available to people just like me who either have never heard of Open Office or Firefox and let them know that open source can be fun, and easy to use.I just downloaded Firefox myself after years of Internet Explorer. I downloaded it and set it up the best I could with the documentation but nowhere was it explained that I had to run it on top of AOL and the IE browser. This was simple and I figured it out myself but if you give free software to the average person and they can't get it right then they're going to uninstall it and move on to the next idea. What have they lost? Nothing, but most people are still somewhat apprehensive about putting "strange stuff " on their computer. Just recently I installed a firewall and antivirus on my ex wife's pc and when an email attachment wouldn't open I was no longer allowed to update either one of them and she had 52 pieces of spyware and a dozen viruses before I came along.
(b)open source has to become less fragmented in that I've noticed more different OSS/Linux distros in the past six months on Betanews.com than MS has versions of Windows period. Every day people like portabilty. I've moved from Windows 95 to ME and to XP without so much as looking for a manual as they are still basically the same to navigate. I can sit down and be functional at any Windows machine but can that happen in Linux? There are 57 different flavors of butterscotch there.
(c)What I'm saying is there needs to be a Bill Gates or a open source clearing house which would boil all of the distros to to a half dozen or so with 2-3 being for home users and the rest into enterprise programs.

I know what I'm saying is somewhat heresy in open source circles but that's my opinion. I'm rooting for the open source and the windows because I'm a consumer and I encourage competition because we all benefit.

Funny, but this week's Economist (hardly a lair of commies) had an article on how software patents are becoming an obstacle to innovation.

The number 228 is ridiculous. Given how software patents are granted (given away like candy), the average piece of software - even small trivial programs - probably violates 2000 patents. And 99.999% of software patents are neither original, non-trivial, non-obvious, or meaningful in any way. Just add the words "on a computer" to any trivial thing and it's a patent.

Software patents are nothing more than a government-sanctioned protection racket. Any true entrepeneur should despise them.

Clearly, Microsoft is losing ground in Asia, particularly China, and is pulling out the old "we wouldn't want anything bad to happen to you" routine. I think they under-estimate China's willingness and ability to give them the finger.

By the way, I'm actually a co-signer on software patents - but we only filed patents after being victimized by extortionists - people who invent nothing, but file patent applications then go around hitting up random companies for fees.

Funny, but this week's Economist (hardly a lair of commies) had an article on how software patents are becoming an obstacle to innovation.

The number 228 is ridiculous. Given how software patents are granted (given away like candy), the average piece of software - even small trivial programs - probably violates 2000 patents. And 99.999% of software patents are neither original, non-trivial, non-obvious, or meaningful in any way. Just add the words "on a computer" to any trivial thing and it's a patent.

Software patents are nothing more than a government-sanctioned protection racket. Any true entrepeneur should despise them.

Clearly, Microsoft is losing ground in Asia, particularly China, and is pulling out the old "we wouldn't want anything bad to happen to you" routine. I think they under-estimate China's willingness and ability to give them the finger.

By the way, I'm actually a co-signer on software patents - but we only filed patents after being victimized by extortionists - people who invent nothing, but file patent applications then go around hitting up random companies for fees.

I would be content with him being forced to read up on topics before spouting about them.

being as I can tell right off that he hasn't invested any time into using either a) firefox, or b) linux. And thus has submitted entirely to microsofts FUD.

but I can't blaim him... he's in the same boat that most americans are... of course. That's what makes this article so interesting.

Anders

101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that IE cannot.

http://www.xulplanet.com/ndeakin/arts/reasons.html

David - to your discussion of intellectual property.

I'll make again the point I made before. I think the problem with IP
law derives from the Constitution, which laid the framework (the notions
of copyrights, patents, and trade secrets come from international common
law, not the Constitution) in the US for these things.

There was a purpose to Art I Sect 8 Cl 8 - "Congress shall have Power ...
to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries."

In most delegations of constitutional authority, the checks and balances
are more explicit. The possibility for checks and balances exists here,
but I think Congress has failed in even recognizing the need for them.

Put another way, IP law no longer serves the original purpose of promoting
useful innovation at the individual level. The law _could_ be changed to
do a better job at that, if the admittedly thorny issue of dealing with
existing monopolies (who have become so be their _legal_ use of IP law)
can be addressed. One of my ideas is to exercise eminent domain over repeated
violator of fair trade laws. Why? If owners of IP don't want to observe
the concerns of the public interest as reflected in law and court decisions,
they should be held to those concerns by the government.

When monopolies can't be held to the rule of law (Microsoft has been convicted
as a prior poster pointed out), we have a problem, whatever the reason for
that may be.

I don't want to be governed by monopolies. If markets can be fair and
responsible, I'm all for them, but capitalists reject the notion that
markets should be anything but "free" (which, I suppose, means that Adam
Smith wasn't a capitalist). So be it, I say.

GW... you make many good points, I just want to clear a small historical error. MS's inovations didn't come from making the graphic user interface, or even making it easy to use, that was all done by macintosh, and even then, as now their OS had signifigantly more versitility and ease at the hands of it's users. What MS did was bring a rickety, ugly version of that mac OS out of powerPC archetecture and on to X86. While PCC is much more stable and generaly hight quality, it's alow much more expensive (the reason why macs cost so much). But in a way you're right, this brough the gui to the masses like never before, but only through bringing crappy cheap hardware with it.

Frankly.. MS has never been known for it's ease of use... put a person down who has never used windows on a windows machine, and see how well they fair. We all have a plethora of tricks and work arounds that we all use to get past this...we have remembered where all the settings are, and the backwards way to do things.

However, sit someone down on a mac, and you'll notice right off the difference on how easy it is to figure out the way things work. Or even the newer linux Desktop environments are heading this way (still MUCH better than windows in usability, as long as the user doesn't need to install new software), take KDE or GNOME for instance.

Anyways... just a clarification.

Anders

Try FreeBSD. No problem with it.

John :)

hehe... the specific way I relate anarchism to communism is from marx and engle being anarchists. Their communist manifesto arrived at a time when they were busy publishing articles on anarchism. And the only big difference between the two, is that communisism had a section on including this period of time where a special government made up of the party officials would have to take control to protect the people from the backlash of capitalism. Though...historicaly everytime this has been implimented, the party never let go of power to finish the steps to becoming communistic.

;)

Anders

Five year chart for MSFT here:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=5y

How about some new innovative products, Steve? Eye on the ball.

/pissed off former MSFT stockowner and Linux user

Keith

I agree free and openBSD are wonderful OS's, very stable, and very good at utilizing the ports system.

I personaly use Gentoo linux, which offers a similar system of maintaining the system (portage), while including the benefits and detriments of linux system.

Anders

All this talk of monopoly, christian analogy etc has missed a very big piont here. Large organisation with the resources can and will switched to open sources as this is to thier advantage. It is the small enterprises, individual consumers who finds the MS platform readilly available, easy to use and cheap as it comes coupled to the computer. Steve Balmer tried scare tactics with the Governments of Asian Country. He may not know it, but alot of the Asian beareucrats are graduates of westerns universities including America. Patent laws are what we have been deligently studying lately.

rfjason is a shill. He is a propagandist here to destroy the thread.

Read the messages before rfjason joins the thread. They talk about microsoft, monopoly, how big corporations hurt society.

rfjason joins the thread and immediately makes personal attacks on other people. Then he starts throwing god around in an insulting way.

He did it on purpose. He changed a thread talking bad about microsoft and big companies into a personal disagreement about god etc.

Professional propagandists do this all the time. THe USA kills people in Iraq. A discussion starts up about the bad USA. Some propagandist shows up to make people mad and loose their train of thought. rfjason is doing the exact same thing here.

Ballmer is jewish. That is why he is useless according to whoever said that. He is a parasite, not a producer. That is why he sounds threatening. That is what they do. "Do as I say or I will have the my colony, the USA, attack you in any number of ways". Happens all the time. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq. The USA is the "muscle" for the "criminals" in Isreal.

But EVEN that's changing. Wallmart offers a 300 dollar 1500 mhz desktop computer running SUSE... That's a STEAL. Dell and HP are both selling laptops with linux, and have tested desktops with it in europe.

I think were going to see that the costs saved on selling linux instead of windows might just start to catch on.

Anders

GW - you're not a heretic... Open source is not a religion...

It's a _market_. A market not controlled (at least not yet
entirely) by the profit motive and the big owners (though
to my dismay, that's changing all too quickly).

If I can do nothing else in this thread but get people to
understand that there is more than one form of market in
this world, I'll be happy.

Generally speaking, open software IS owned, in every sense
of the word, except that as intellectual property, the owners
choose explicitly to prohibit licensing revenue instead of
collect it.

But, as copyrighted property, for example, you only use it
as a licensee. It still belongs to its owners.

There are DEEP problems with a property licensing model for
purely intellectual property. And those problems are plaguing
not just the computer software industry, they're plaguing all
IP industries - look at the recording and movie industries,
for example.

Originators of IP should be capable of making revenue as
supporters and maintainers of that and other IP. That's a
simple and workable economic model. But monopoly gets in
the way of it in really big ways.

I found the discussion interesting, it has everything in it. Below is my opinion:

1. IBM told us how to make a PC but didn't see the future from a market standpoint.

2. Bill gates imagination on licensing DOS is a strike of genius (I know he didn't make it, but there are lot of things that never see the light), rest is history.

3. There is room for everybody on the planet, unfortunately, it is not free, nature says, you have to compete or perish, trust me it is a good design :), there is nothing wrong in microsoft making money, there are problems when we mix politics, science and economics because their goals are not coherent.

4. Intel and Microsoft by using economics of scale made it possible for you and me to own computers. I don't have to say that technology is not cheap. I understand that Microsoft sometimes doesn't play fair and gets away with it, the reason is far deeper, again I will get to it in a little. But in the context of bringing computing to everyday lives, a little bit of evil is okay for the larger good of mankind.

5. Now, we can bring Linux in to the picture, essentially a new kid on the block with a new philosophy, remember, he needs the above 4 things to happen to get here, he is growing fast and the future is bright.

6. I don't claim to understand politics, but it is sad to see democracies behave like empires. The major chunk of the money for elections is funded by corporations, now that you get elected, you act in the interests of those who made you, it is a vicious cycle, this is a manipulated democracy for the people for the benefit of you know whom.

I would like to talk about many things, but I have to do other things too :), for some reason, I have to live one day at a time and they are limited.

rfjason bashing the open source community is just not right. Considering he's doing it over the public Internet, which is a child of the open source community. It was the open-source hackers, with government/public funding, who developed the basic plumbings of the internet, from TCP/IP all the way to things like DNS, HTTP, and SMTP.

So many governments in the world are now moving toward the open source. And big companies like IBM, Novell, Sun, HP, etc etc are big supporters of Linux. They do have choices, and they are choosing the better OS. When it comes to large-scale infrastructure, it just makes sense to rely on an open standard instead of a closed-box system.

Microsoft's been throwing tons of money into its FUD campaign, from scaring IT shops with this patent suit bullshit, suing governments left and right as well as strong-arming hardware manufacturers. rfjason's all for choice, and so am I, but Microsoft is not.

congratulations everyone... you have retaken this thread from the brink. You have vanquished the loud mouthed and poorly researched trol, and saved the day. For this you should be proud.

Anders

For the record. Balmer misrepresented OSRM findings.
What they tell is that:
a) Linux violates "0" tested patents.
b) there are 238 registerd patents which were never tested in court (and looked critically by anybody) which could possibly overlap with linux depending on reading of the patent which can be found only during lawsuit with patent holder or Patent office review initiated by opposing party (as it can not sue patent holder for frivolious patent).

my impression is that you can safely bet that most other OS have similar problem, counting the way in which software patents are often formulated.

Wow. I walk away for two hours and the collective IQ plummets faster than the living standards of a southern baptist family after the end of slavery. Let's see if we can't repair some of the damage ... *deep breath*

Thank you mk for getting this thread back on the subject. I think that most of us reading this can agree that what Steve Balmer did was disgusting, but certainly not out of character for him.

OH NO! I BETTER RUN FOR MY LIFE! THE ISOMISTS ARE COMING TO CUT ME UP!

(what's an isomist?)

David wrote:

"it's not even the software's fault; it's because
technology isn't what buyers think it is."

So, in other words, when incompetent people buy computers, they don't know how to use them. But, instead of learning how, they blame the computer. Got it.

David wrote:

"I think you do believe in a God - yourself. That's cool. I just hope you can live up to that if push comes to shove."

As a matter of fact, since I understand Man as a heroic being, I could very well refer to myself as God, and that would be okay.

David wrote:
"IE originated from the same open source code as did Mozilla."

No, IE is BASED on Mosaic. It was developed strictly by Microsoft-paid developers. There was no open source community involved in its development at any time. Get your facts straight.

Anders wrote: "start listing some features that IE has that firefox lacks"

Okay, how about the HUNDREDS of extensions to HTML, CSS, and scripting that IE has supported for years before Firefox was even thought up.

Standards bodies are idiotic and monolithic. Microsoft, in giving the public what it demands, went above and beyond these poorly thought out standards to make today's robust internet possible. Not Mozilla, not Firefox. IE and IE alone.

It took the children of Mosaic 10 years to catch up to IE, just to get features that are barely competitive. Yeah Firefox supports Flash now. AFTER HOW MANY YEARS OF WAITING FOR THEM TO GET IT RIGHT?

Anders wrote: "firefox has the web development toolbar, an irc chat client, tabs, web-dev toolbar that lets you edit webpages in line in real time."

Those are all fantastic geek toys. But they're not features. Julie the Soccer Mom doesn't care that she can edit webpages in real time. And, despite all the hype tabs are given, usability studies have already shown that tabs don't improve the user's browsing experience. Tabs are just a recycled implementation of MDI which Microsoft moved away from when it's own usability studies also showed that an SDI interface was preferrable. Go, get a clue before you start spouting off "features" that only matter to people like you. For the rest of America couldn't care less about a web-dev toolbar.

Firefox is a poor cousin who has a LOT of catch up work to do before it's an IE competitor.

notsure wrote:
"Naw, I think I'll dismiss rjjason's arguments because he is a right wing asshole."

Congratulations. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it really doesn't matter to me that you disregard my arguments in favor of a religious nut. All it does is reveal your utter inability to think for yourself.

Besides, I'm not a right-winger. I hate republicans and democrats equally.

I find it interesting. Many people got "into" computers as a primary mechanism to communicate via the Internet. The Internet is possible because of the open standards and the open source software that is powering it.