On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:00:33 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>__/ [ Rex Ballard ] on Friday 16 February 2007 13:39 \__
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> From: anonymous
>>> After following the last link I have below, I speculate but it appears
>>> that
>>> Microsoft wanted to settle quickly. They have information that Microsoft
>>> violated US Dept. of Justice 2002 ruling. If I have an article listed
>>> below that you have not done yet, you are free to use:
>>>
>http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011285&intsrc=hm_list
>>> or http://tinyurl.com/ysj3ky
>>
>> Keep in mind that during the DOJ vs Microsoft case, the prosecution
>> did more for their case during their cross-examination of defense
>> witnesses, than they did during their presentation of the direct
>> evidence. Furthermore, there were clear indications that differences
>> between the Windows 2000 licenses and the Windows XP licenses were
>> designed to exclude Linux from the marketplace, and to force users to
>> buy Windows licenses they didn't need. New provisions in the Vista
>> licenses are designed to force Linux users to pay for upgrades that
>> they don't need. And the increase in prices, at both OEM and Retail
>> level, for Vista could have been used to increase the damages even
>> more. Most importantly, if Iowa had gone to Judge Kollar-Kotelly and
>> presented their case, it's possible that the contempt of court during
>> the period that all of the provisions of the settlement were in force,
>> could have prompted the judge to extend all of the provisions of the
>> original settlement for another 5-7 years.
>>
>> Many states are already passing "open IT" laws designed to force state
>> agencies, state funds recipients, and tax exempt organizations to
>> consider Open Source alternatives first. Purchases of Microsoft
>> products in particular, and proprietary products in general must go
>> through a much more expensive review process. Unfortunately, it's
>> hard to target Microsoft specifically.
>>
>> When AT&T established it's monopoly over telephones, the government
>> passed laws to regulate the telephone companies. The same thing
>> happened with Electricity and electric companies.
>>
>> My guess is that the real reason Microsoft let this case drag on as
>> long as they did was to make sure that the settlement included Vista.
>> If Iowa doesn't demand that Microsoft reduce the price of Vista, then
>> they can't come back later and complain that they were overcharged.
>>
>> The one thing I have noticed since the settlement was announced, is
>> that the original links to all of those PDF files of e-mails and
>> letters has been password protected. It seems that what was
>> previously public domain information, is now being restricted by the
>> settlement. Of course, anyone who downloaded those documents to their
>> hard drives while the documents were in public domain, can publish
>> those documents whenever they feel like it. My guess is that lots of
>> people did download all of those documents, and will be posting them
>> on their own web sites.
>
>
>Yes. Fortunately, many people from the Groklaw and Slashdot communities did
>just that. You can find the mirrors (I have seen a few) if you follow the
>most recent threads. Rest assured, all the available evidence will be
>reconstructed, reassembled, and made public in a cohesive fashion. It could
>take a while though. Groklaw has just set up a page with the Gates
>deposition tapes, as well. It's just a shame that the trial did not carry
>on. The longer it progressed, the more smoking guns got resurrected. While
>Microsoft could not take back the memos (just make them harder to access and
>create some 404/405s on the Web), it could end this ripple effect that was
>very damaging. I spread quotes form these memos in many Web sites and have
>heard from people who said they have had it! It was time for ethics (Linux).
>
>
>>> /quote/
>>> Restaurant meal helped fuel Microsoft's Iowa settlement deal
>>> Lawyers say agreement to end class-action lawsuit was reached on Sunday
>>>
>>> According to information released by the Iowa plaintiffs during the trial,
>>> the lawsuit covered 7.5 million purchases of Windows and other Microsoft
>>> products between May 1994 and June 2006. More than 1,100 Microsoft
>>> customers opted out of the suit, but Conlin said that number was a
>>> statistically insignificant portion of the overall base of users who made
>>> qualifying purchases. "It was just half of half of half a percent of the
>>> total number of people affected," she said.
>>
>> 7.5 million people in Iowa will be getting coupons for $40 off the
>> price of Vista, which is overpriced, as compensation for being
>> overcharged $40 for Windows 95 and Windows 98, and the cases didn't
>> even go into the overcharging for XP. The scope of the trial didn't
>> even attempt to go into damages due to viruses, damages due to
>> sabotage of 3rd party products, the forced upgrades to XP, the
>> announcement and immediate withdrawal of offers by HP and Toshiba to
>> provide their computers preinstalled with Linux. If there was a
>> smoking gun memo there, it could have opened the doors wide open to
>> new litigation.
>>
>>> Regarding a claim by the plaintiffs that they had proof Microsoft was
>>> violating its 2002 antitrust settlement with the DOJ, Conlin said it's
>>> unclear if and when the public may have access to that information. "We
>>> did what lawyers are supposed to do, which is turn it over to the U.S.
>>> Department of Justice and the Iowa Department of Justice," she said.
>>> /-quote/
>>
>> Keep in mind that the DOJ received over 6,000 complaints per year,
>> asserting that Microsoft was actively defying the settlement. All of
>> these were "investigated" and "dismissed" by a 3 member "technical
>> committee", consisting of 1 member chosen by the Bush administration,
>> and 2 members chosen by Microsoft. Nearly every vote was split 2 to 1.
>>
>> Even when when Microsoft was openly and publicly punishing Linux users
>> and companies who were switching to Linux, the court turned a blind
>> eye.
>>
>> Ironically, this may have helped to fuel the development and adoption
>> of Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, and VMWare Player. The Linux
>> distributors found new ways to penetrate the market and help Linux
>> users purchase Linux-ready computers. LiveCDs, Knoppix, Ubuntu, and
>> new drivers for most devices have made it a trivial act to install
>> Linux on nearly 70% of the computers sold in the last year. The
>> "white box" market has grown to nearly 40% of the market, and nearly
>> all PCs sold in the last 6 months have featured 64 bit processors and
>> hyperthreading designed to facilitate virtualization.
>>
>> The current trends are toward virtualization, with Linux being the
>> primary operating system and the OEM version of Windows being the
>> secondary operating system. The big sticking point at the moment is
>> that VISTA HOME BASIC, which has all of the features required or
>> needed in such a configuration, expressly forbids it's use as a
>> Virtualized client. The versions of VISTA that do permit
>> virtualization are loaded with extra features that consume nearly all
>> of the available memory - increasing the footprint of Vista and Office
>> 2007 to a minimum of 1 gigabyte.
>>
>> Microsoft is fighting the market tooth and nail. Trying to squeeze
>> every possible dollar out of Vista as they can, using one last big
>> extortion play. Ironically, this his triggered a rejection of Vista
>> in the marketplace, with purchasers of new machines opting for XP
>> instead. You can pretty much figure that any machine sold after
>> Januarry 30th with XP instead of Vista - will ultimately become a
>> Linux machine running Virtualized XP.
>>
>>>
>http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/expectations-mount-microsoft-forecast/story.aspx?guid=%7B0DB4CAAF-82F0-4AAD-AE4E-1738E4379E5E%7D
>>> or http://tinyurl.com/ysoj4s
>>
>>> ,----[ Quotes with annotation ]
>>> | "(Microsoft manager:) I don't like the fact that the report show us
>>> | losing on TCO on webservers. I don't like the fact that the report show
>>> | us losing on availability (windows was down more than linux). And I
>>> | don't like the fact that the reports says nothing new is coming with
>>> | windows .net server."
>>> | [...]
>>> | "I don't like it to be public on the doc that we sponsored it because I
>>> | don't think the outcome is as favorable as we had hoped. I just don't
>>> | like competitors using it as ammo against us. It is easier if it doesn't
>>> | mention that we sponsored it."
>>> `----
>>> http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/9000/PX09695.pdf
>>
>> Ironically, this one letter could prove to be very damaging. For
>> years Microsoft has tried to claim that they offer better TCO. Their
>> "fast facts" is filled with speculative cases where someone who
>> considered using Linux opted not to and listed a bunch of bogus
>> expenses as their reason why Linux adoption would be too expensive.
>> This letter shows that Microsoft had funded a study of actual
>> migrations which showed that Linux had better TCO, and decided to not
>> only bury the story (or at least withdraw their name from the report
>> making it an interesting study but with much less credibility and news
>> coverage), but they also attempted to use much less reliable sources
>> as marketing material in claims that Windows had better TCO than Linux
>> or Unix. It was
>>
>> Of course, companies that did their own research, deployed Linux on
>> some of their servers, and actually monitored procurement, support,
>> training, and staffing costs, quickly found that Linux had much lower
>> TCO, and much higher ROI. In fact, the biggest problem in tracking
>> Linux projects was that the costs were so low, that they were often
>> below the radar. For example if developers used Fedora or even SUSE
>> SLED for development, and ported to a server, there were trivial
>> support expenses ($1500/year), no "Client Access Licenses", unlimited
>> users, and the servers were often machines that had originally been
>> purchased for Windows. The newer server was configured with Windows
>> to maximize performance for the expensive licenses, the older servers
>> were converted to Linux rather than being recycled externally. Linux
>> also came with all the goodies needed to create a fully functional
>> server or gateway to high-end UNIX databases and legacy systems.
>
>
>The TCO memo is one that I have plantered in many sites that mentioned Get
>the Facts campaigns. These still show up on a daily basis. What better
>rebuttal would there be then Microsoft's own frustrated tone? Let alone the
>cheating...
>
>
>> Even the labor costs were lower, because Linux administrators could
>> script routine tasks, and usually also had the skills to assist with
>> development efforts.
>>
>> Most companies who have actually made the transition from Windows to
>> Linux on at least some of their systems, have reported real-world
>> savings of 80% to 95% depending on the functions being performed.
>> Migration to Linux desktop has also shown savings, but the savings are
>> onlly 70% to 85%, essentially the total of all costs is 1/3 to 1/6
>> that of Windows. I believe this does not include the costs and
>> impacts of viruses and malware, which would make Linux 1/10th to
>> 1/20th the cost.
>
>
>Sorry I don't reply more often. I read everything though.
Keep doing a great job of spreading this stuff around where it
belongs. People are discovering alot of severely needed truth.
I'm new here and this is a breath of fresh air. It amazes me the guys
who glibly and idiotically explain away the crimes and ignorance of
MS.
Man, what a bunch of wanking boot licking puppets with cheap little
junk MS choke chains dangling from their necks. Makes me crazy.
At least MS staff have a place to go. US gov is hiring all the time.
|
|
