Hadron Quark wrote:
> Peter Hayes <not_in_use@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:38:29 +0100, DFS wrote
> > (in article <vvJJg.40579$j8.871@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):
> >
> >> Peter Hayes wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:00:55 +0100, DFS wrote
> >>> (in article <hYIJg.40439$j8.16928@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):
> >>>
> >>>> If MS doesn't include anti-virus programs, Linux whiners whine. If
The problem is that Microsoft has total control of the OEM channel, and
uses their monopoly control over that OEM channel to engage in
anticompetitive practices.
The solution is actually pretty simple. Microsoft just needs to
eliminate all provisions in OEM contracts which pertain to the
configuration of the preinstalled image. Let the OEMs come up with
what THEY want to offer. Now, if the OEM wants to create a
"distribution" which includes software provided for free, OSS software,
or software for which revenue is derived by selling services (such as
AntiVirus update subscriptions, Audio subscription services, and Video
subscription services, and so on, there would be NO RESTRICTION on how
that machine could be configured.
If the OEM wants to install Linux as the Host operating system (for
improved security), and then install Windows as the client, there would
be NO RESTRICTION to prevent this.
> >>>> MS does include anti-virus programs, Linux whiners whine.
Again, the issue is that Microsoft forces every OEM to install THEIR
anti-virus program, and no other third-party applications. Then, the
third-party vendors have no access to the OEM market, and must try to
compete via web or via retail market, which has a much higher entry
cost. A retail distribution of software typically costs a minimum of
$12 million up front and $2 million per month to maintain. Antivirus,
anti-spyware, and security software is one of the few remaining
non-game applications which are still sold through retail channels.
And this is probably because people generally know better than to
attach directly to the internet before the antivirus protection is
installed.
The fundamental difference between Linux and Microsoft is that Linux
offers people a CHOICE of bundled software. Microsoft requires that
the OEM get prior written approval for any preinstalled image, before
it is shipped (Compaq nearly had their license revoked when they
altered the configuration to include Netscape and remove the IE icon
from the desktop).
True, there is nothing that explicitly says "thou shalt not install
Netscape, FireFox, or OpenOffice", but the OEMs are not only facing
possible rejection if they deviate too much, but they are also facing
possible delays in the approval process as well. These delays can mean
that market windows will be missed, that seasonal promotions will not
be stocked on the shelves on time, and that revenues will suffer
substantially as a result.
Linux distributions on the other hand, provide the simple solution of
offering everything they possibly, and legally, can. Red Hat and SUSE,
for example, offer over 3,000 independent packages, including both OSS
and commercial applications. Linux customers get the benefit of having
access to software from a trusted source, that can be kept up to date
by a trusted source, in exchange for a modest annual support fee.
Linux distributors have made repeated offers to OEMs which would allow
them to offer Linux and Windows on the same machine. Red Hat offered
dual-boot support, and offered to let the OEMs install both Windows 3.1
and Red Hat Linux on the same drive. Microsoft rejected those
configurations when they were submitted by the OEMs.
In addition, Microsoft studied these configurations and made sure that
Windows 95 completely DESTROYED any previously installed boot managers,
partitions, and even Windows 3.1 itself. This SABOTAGE damaged the
machines of millions of users who had tried to upgrade existing 3.1
machines, only to find that ALL of their PERSONAL DATA, which had not
been backed up to hundreds of floppy disks (the only reliable media
supported by Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 on most of the machines sold at
the time), had been DESTROYED.
> >> If MS bundles an app like a photo mgmt tool, cola whiners whine they're
> >> "anti-competitive, driving everyone out of business". If MS doesn't bundle
> >> an app like a photo mgmt tool, cola whiners whine "Windows doesn't come with
> >> any apps!"
> >>
> >> MS\Windows can't win with a cola bozo.
Sure the could. They could remove all restrictions and allow OEMs or
distributors to offer preinstalled or selectable applications, which
could be shipped with the PC. They could offer 10 or 20 different
photo management tools, all of which could be upgraded to photo editing
tools, at the user's option, for a modest price. This would provide
market access to hundreds of millions of end users, for little or no
additional costs to the publishers.
Instead, Microsoft insists on offering one text editor that doesn't
even have the best features of nano, one photo management tool that
makes gimp look like professional equipment, a draw application that
makes even fig look advanced, a wordpad application that makes
OO-Writer look like a top-of-the-line offering.
What would happen if Microsoft let the OEMs install anything they
wanted (in addition to those offered by Microsoft)? Would they install
FireFox, OpenOffice, Gimp, and 200 or so additional third-party OSS and
Shareware applications? Would they offer WinZip, Acrobat, Symantic AND
McAffee antivirus software concurrently?
What would happen if Microsoft offered Windows as both a Client and as
a Host operating system, and removed all restrictions. Would OEMs take
some of their lines and install Linux as the host and Windows as the
client? Would they take other lines and offer Windows as the Host and
Linux as the client? How many would offer Windows Only if Microsoft
gave them complete control of their own configuration.
> > The best example of Microsoft's previous behaviour bundling Internet Explorer
> > with Windows 9.x for the sole purpose of destroying Netscape.
>
> When wasnt it "bundled"?
You must be very young. When windows 95 was first released, Microsoft
was concerned about the court order which was intended to stop them
from preinstalling applications on OEM machines or bundling through
pricing or other tactics, such things as Word Processors and
Spreadsheets. Microsoft shipped a "plus" kit for Windows 95 which
included the Web Browser, along with several other applications.
When Microsoft started shipping Windows 95B, they bundled these "plus"
applications with the OEM configuration, and required prior written
approval to any alteration of this configuration. When Netscape
offered to PAY Compaq to install their browser, and remove the IE icon
from the desktop, Compaq didn't get the correct prior written approval
of this configuration change. As a result, when Compaq started
shipping machines which had the Netscape Icon where the IE icon was
supposed to be, Microsoft gave them notice that their licenses would be
revoked in 30 days. Compaq had to renegotiate (and repurchase?) the
licenses for Windows 95. This resulted in a disclosure to the DOJ, who
then filed contempt of court charges in the Bundling case.
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson had opproved the Bundling settlement
after two other judges including Judge Sporkin had rejected similar
settlements. He gave Microsoft every benefit of the doubt, and even
bent over backwards to allow Microsoft to submit evidence which, in
effect, accused the Judge of being too stupid or ignorant to understand
the nature of these contracts. The Judge ruled against Microsoft,
ordering the punitive remedy requested by the DOJ. Microsoft appealed,
presented new evidence, in a forum where the DOJ was not allowed to
cross examine or rebut the presented evidence. The appeals court
ignored the transcripts of the original hearings and voted in a split
2-1 decision to overturn the ruling.
> > Because of that particular piece of chicanery the rest of the planet has had
> > to pick up the tab for trillions of $$$ worth of security exploits over the
> > eleven years since.
>
> New tonfoil hat requried : size extra large.
Melissa was estimated to have caused nearly $20 billion in damage.
Iloveyou was estimated to gave caused nearly $40 billion in damage.
Nimda was estimated to have caused more damage than any previous virus,
possibly over 100 billion in damages.
Julie's Resume only caused $10 billion in damage.
Office Macroviruses have caused about $1 billion per year in damages.
ActiveX borne viruses have caused an additional $10 billion/year in
damages.
bogus attachments (undetected and executed by Outlook)
have caused another $20 billion per year in damages.
Spyware, which is technically not a "virus" adversely impacts system
performance and may also leak confidential and sensitive information is
also not accounted for.
There are now over 250,000 viruses and variants now attempting to
attack computers. The averaged internet attached computer will be
attacked within 10-12 minutes. The attack may be unsuccessful, but it
will be attacked.
These estimates were based on the cost of backing up and disinfecting
critical user files, reimage of the hard drive, reinstallation of the
Windows, reinstallation of the "standard" applications, and the paid
user time that the user was unproductive. It did not include time
spent restoring personal settings, time lost due to files that could
not be recovered, or data that had not been backed up, and time spent
installing "job specific" applications.
Microsoft makes $40 billion/year, and the losses due to Microsoft
provided "back doors", which they have known about since at least 1997,
have averaged over $50 billion/year over the last 10 years.
The sad thing is that it's not even "News" anymore. The only "news"
coverage of the topic was a warning of an "AlQueda" virus, that is
supposed to be really nasty and destructive, and is supposed to be
coming out some time in early September. Even this is being downplayed
in the mainstream press at the request of DHS.
> > Now we have Microsoft destroying the A/V companies' businesses, and the DoJ
> > just stand back and let them away with it.
>
> How are they destroying it?
Let's see. Microsoft forces all OEMs to preinstall ONLY their
antivirus program, and have it configured so that it takes control
immediately. Furthermore, in Vista, Ring-Zero will now be tightly
controlled, meaning that even the existing antivirus software purchased
from retailers cannot be installed.
> Is competition a bad thing?
The competition must pay "flooring fees" roughly the equivalent of $20
per copy,
for shelf space,
The user must install it themselves,
The competitors must figure out how to disable Microsoft's "ring zero"
control
long enough to install the antivirus.
The competitors must figure out how to update their configurations,
when Microsoft's firewall may attempt to block those protocols.
Microsoft "security updates" could disable or cripple the antivirus at
any time.
Microsoft "security updates" could detect third party applications as
viruses and attempt to remove them.
> Linux destroyed it from day one....
Linux at least provides a marketing channel for smaller, independent,
3rd party software vendors. Vendors can offer OSS versions such as
Open Office, and offer upgrades to commercial products such as
StarOffice. They can offer the application as a service, offering free
services for a trial period, and providing subscription plans at
reasonable rates through internet connections. They can offer
shareware - offering users the opportunity to register and get
additional services.
The lower cost marketing channel means that millions of users can buy a
product for as little as $6 per copy for high-grade commercial
applications, and pay subscription fees to distributors for automated
upgrades.
The key point being that Linux offers the CHOICE to the END USER.
Microsoft forces ONE product to be deployed by the OEM.
In effect, force-feeding third-rate products to end users, making it
nearly impossible to get funding, or even access, to superior
alternatives. Superior being in terms of the user's specific needs,
tastes, and preferences.
|
|
