Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
High Plains Thumper wrote:
Most noticeable is when posting Linux advocacy or countering
a troll's FUD, is the immediate revengeful posting of my
former home address, former phone numbers and former ISP,
false references to homosexuality, racial slurs, false
accusing others as my supposed nymshifts, every bit of
humanly possible dirt imaginable.
Flatfish accused Roy Schestowitz of gender transformation,
referring to other advocates including myself of having
homosexual relations with other advocates, ad nauseum.
Those who post about Linux advocacy will be attacked.
While I don't condone those kinds of bullshit responses, you
have to realize that you are one of those people that rubs
others the wrong way. Roy is another.
There are plenty of Linux advocates, who post interesting and
pro linux stuff that don't get attacked. You know why? They
stick to the truth.
Ghost in the machine is a good example. Chris Alstrom, when
he was much more of a reasonable advocate, also didn't get
much push back. The problem is that once you start down the
road of telling lies to advocate, then the attacks come and
then you likewise feel the need to attack back and it becomes
a vicious cycle.
Likewise, 99.9% of my posts are very civil and don't insult
people, yet that doesn't stop Linux advocates from throwing
all kinds of nastiness at me, does it?
So don't pretend like you're a saint in this matter. you're
not.
OTOH, Microsoft artificially kept prices up on their
operating system, even though development costs were well
recouped.
First, Microsoft's price for OS's was in line with others who
were selling OS's. OS/2 cost about the same as Windows, for
isntance and MacOS costs about the same as well when you
factor in the fact that all MacOS disks are upgrades (ie, you
can't buy a Mac that wasn't sold without a license initially,
and you can't legally run MacOS on non-apple hardware,
therefore each version of MacOS is implicitly licensed as an
upgrade).
Windows XP Home OEM retail is still around $90 US, same
price as it was when it was first distributed. When they
had eliminated the competition with their free bundling of
the Office suite with OEM's, I saw the price immediately go
up considerably above the competition's.
And why hasn't MacOS pricing gone down? Why hasn't the cost
of a commercial SuSE or Mandriva license gone down over the
years?
Your argument doesn't seem to conform to reality of everyone
else. Not only that, but Microsoft has continued to upgarde
XP over the years, releasing a number of new versions
(including 64 bit, Media Center, Tablet PC, Service Packs
(which were as much work as an entire new OS release, really)
as well. So this "recoup costs" argument is also kind of
pointless, since Microsoft is ALWAYS working on new versions.
Can you name a *SINGLE* OS that has come down in price over
the years? I sure can't.
I just have one comment concerning this troll. The only thing
that Mr. Funkenbusch has over others is experience. The lying
manipulative manner, introducing false accusations is nothing new.
For one, Roy Schestowitz's only one so called sin against the
Wintrolls is his posts, which contains bits of truth about Linux,
the OS market place and things of interest to the Linux
community. Only on an occasion does he interject personal
opinion, most are direct quotes for all to see. To call him
someone who rubs people wrong is simply not true.
Regarding Microsoft's OS, I have seen very little change in my
copies of Windows XP Home. Yes, I have faithfully kept them
updated with service packs, but they still remain the same basic
operating system that they were installed as 6 years ago. The
only difference is that with the service packs corrected memory
allocation instabilities. Now Command and Conquer Generals does
not require a reboot after play, whereas 6 years ago it did.
Else, the system would become unstable.
Regarding 64 bit, tablet and media versions, I have no need of
these. I don't consider them as improvements to my dual boot
Win32 versions, so they don't apply.
I don't appreciate Mr. Funkenbusch's insinuations that advocates
such as I are don't stick to the truth (essentially spread lies)
and so called "rub people" in the wrong direction.
The caustic insulting nature of the Wintrolls herein, including
Erik Funkenbusch, Tim Smith, DFS, Rick Mather (Clogwog and nyms),
Gary Stewart (Flatfish and nyms), the Douglas perp, Bill
Weisberger (amicus_curious and nyms), Michael Glasser (Snit,
Rhino Plastee and nyms) certainly hasn't been appreciated by the
Linux community, placing the entire posting community in a
defensive posture.
This is one of the reasons that advocates provided Section 7.6,
Disinformation Tactics in the official FAQ found at
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
which was officially approved and sanctioned by the community.
It is also one of the reasons why an advocate provided the blog
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/
Some think it is originated by Roy Culley. There are others it
could be, who I don't know. At this point, it matters little.
The following is true. The Microsoft Corporation has been
declared by both the US and EU courts of being a monopoly that
practises monopoly maintenance.
According to the US Department of Justice, Microsoft engaged in
anticompetitive licensing of its operating system to dominate the
competition:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0046.htm
[quote]
The United States of America, acting under the direction of the
Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil action
to prevent and restrain the defendant Microsoft Corporation
("Microsoft") from using exclusionary and anticompetitive
contracts to market its personal computer operating system
software. By these contracts, Microsoft has unlawfully maintained
its monopoly of personal computer ("PC") operating systems and
has unreasonably restrained trade.
Virtually all major PC manufacturers find it necessary to offer
Microsoft operating systems on most of their PCs. Microsoft's
monopoly power allows it to induce these manufacturers to enter
into anticompetitive, long-term licenses under which they must
pay royalties to Microsoft not only when they sell PCs containing
Microsoft's operating systems, but also when they sell PCs
containing non-Microsoft operating systems.
These anticompetitive contracts help Microsoft maintain its
dominance in the PC operating system market. By inhibiting
competing operating systems' access to PC manufacturers,
Microsoft's exclusionary contracts slow innovation and deprive
consumers of an effective choice among competing PC operating
systems.
These contracts outlined below constitute illegal monopo-
lization and unlawful restraints of trade, and the United States
seeks this Court's order declaring Microsoft's anticompetitive
contracts illegal and otherwise remedying the unlawful effects of
Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct.
[/quote]
US Department of Justice regarding anticompetitive acts against
IBM with regarding to Windows 95 and Lotus:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
[quote]
122. The IBM PC Company had begun negotiations with Microsoft
for a Windows 95 license in late March 1995. For the first two
months, the negotiations had progressed smoothly and at an
expected pace. After IBM announced its intention to acquire
Lotus, though, the Microsoft negotiators began canceling meetings
with their IBM counterparts, failing to return telephone calls,
and delaying the return of marked-up license drafts that they
received from IBM. Then, on July 20, 1995, just three days after
IBM announced its intention to pre-install SmartSuite on its PCs,
a Microsoft executive informed his counterpart at the IBM PC
Company that Microsoft was terminating further negotiations with
IBM for a license to Windows 95. Microsoft also refused to
release to the PC Company the Windows 95 "golden master" code.
The PC Company needed the code for its product planning and
development, and IBM executives knew that Microsoft had released
it to IBM's OEM competitors on July 17. Microsoft's purported
reason for halting the negotiations was that it wanted first to
resolve an ongoing audit of IBM's past royalty payments to
Microsoft for several different operating systems.
[/quote]
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0100/0102.htm
[quote]
This Court cannot ignore the obvious. Here is the dominant firm
in the software industry admitting it "preannounces" products to
freeze the current software market and thereby defeat the
marketing plans of competitors that have products ready for
market. Microsoft admits that the preannouncement is solely for
the purpose of having an adverse impact on a competitor's
product. Its counsel states it has advised its client that the
practice is perfectly legal and it may continue the practice.
This practice of an alleged monopolist would seem to contribute
to the acquisition, maintenance, or exercise of market share.
[/quote]
Following describes Microsoft's anticompetitive acts to inhibit
competition by preventing others from successfully integrating
their products with Windows:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc-00029523.htm
[quote]
As recognized in the CIS and D.C. Circuit Court opinion,
Microsoft has prevented competitors from offering meaningful
Middleware alternatives in three main ways: (1) Microsoft has
taken advantage of the fluidity of software to continually
reconfigure its products in ways that make it difficult or
impossible for even superior middleware offerings of competitors
to remain viable; (2) Microsoft has refused to disclose interface
information that would enable competitors to offer middleware
products that operate effectively; and (3) Microsoft has engaged
in coercive sales and marketing tactics that force distributors
and consumers to favor even inferior Microsoft products over
those of competitors. See CIS, 66 Fed. Reg. at 59,461.
Microsoft's refusal to disclose meaningful and timely interface
information has been especially damaging to competitors, like
Novell, who have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to develop
superior alternatives to Microsoft products in the increasingly
rare instances in which they have been able to obtain, or
ascertain on their own, the critical interface information that
allows for the effective interoperation of their middleware with
Microsoft operating systems. As a result, the public is denied
the benefits of innovation and the opportunity to choose among
competing alternatives.
The CIS recognizes that meaningful disclosure of interface
information by Microsoft is essential to effective relief. The
CIS explains: "[T]he effect of Section III.D [of the RPFJ] is to
assure to Non-Microsoft Middleware meaningful access to the same
services provided by the operating system as those available to
Microsoft Middleware. Microsoft Middleware will not have access
to any hidden or proprietary features of Windows Operating System
Products that might allow it to operate more effectively." Id. at
59,468. Unfortunately, the RPFJ again fails to deliver on DoJ's
purported goal.
[/quote]
Here, we see instances of Microsoft moving the goal posts, to
achieve monopolization:
[quote]
In contrast to the RPFJ, a meaningful remedy must account for the
fact that Microsoft manipulates interface information in a
variety of ways to preclude competition. Although too numerous to
recount, Microsoft's tactics include:
* "Secret Interfaces" - Microsoft does not publish all the
interfaces it uses and does not publish all the interface
information that others need to develop products that
interoperate with Microsoft software.
* "Crippled Interfaces" - For some functions, Microsoft
publishes information about an interface that is inferior to the
interface that Microsoft itself uses to accomplish a function, or
publishes incomplete information about an interface.
* "Kick Me Interfaces" - Sometimes, Microsoft publishes
information about an interface that Microsoft uses to perform a
function, but it "marks" non-Microsoft software in a way that
assures the interface will operate in an inferior way. Microsoft
can "mark" competitors software through tagging, signing,
encrypted passwords, or by noting the absence of such features.
* "Moving Interfaces" - If, by some means, a third party has
been able to obtain adequate interface information that Microsoft
doesn't want it to have, Microsoft will simply move the
interface. For example, Novell successfully figured out how to
enable its directory services software to interoperate with
Windows NT. To counter Novell's success, in Windows 2000
Microsoft broke up and moved the computer files containing the
interface information used by Novell and marked, or signed,
information required for the interfaces so that Novell could
neither use Microsoft's interface information nor replace it.
The typical result of such tactics is that Microsoft makes
competing products appear inferior to Microsoft's products.
Microsoft's actions may make a competing product appear slower,
require more memory, or perform with limited functionality. These
tactics also enable Microsoft to persuade customers to buy
Microsoft's inferior and/or more expensive products simply to
avoid Microsoft's roadblocks.(15)
[/quote]
With such uncompetitive tactics, I think it is time for a change
in the market place, with other operating systems having an
opportunity to fill its place.
--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green
|
|
