[KLUG Advocacy] Re: Advocacy digest, Vol 1 #11 - 1 msg

[advocacy@kalamazoolinux.org]

>> I mention this as I think there is still a realistic chance that M$ will
>> successfully crunch Open Source...
>You mean "limit" Open Source.  Unless by "crunch" you "limit."
I take Adam's meaning as "destroy", or "render moribund". 

>A key to this is legal....
Agreed. I susepct this is a battle that MS can win, or at least fare better at
than it has done technically.

>Despite its proprietary interfaces, Microsoft
>protocols and formats _do_ eventually get reverse engineered in 1-2
>years.  
IMO this is such a long time that it is a real advantage, and we'll keep
seeing this tactic employed, if only to sap resources from the OSS/FS com-
munity.

>So Microsoft will be _forced_ to sue to stop it.  Worse yet for
>Microsoft, 3rd party reverse engineering "interferes" with their
>strategy of changing protocols and formats to be just "slightly"
>incompatible to force upgrades.
Yes, one of the most powerful sales tools we have is in pointing out that
we lengthen lifecycles by using STANDARD protocols. I generally try to 
show people that Linux and MOST OF THE COMPUTER INDUSTRY adhere to a bucnh
of agreed-upon international standards, so why bother with THIS ONE ERRANT
COMPANY who thinks they can get away with playing games? It's actually a 
very effective sell, especially as the organization gets larger...

>It's hard for Microsoft to be completely anti-competitive with OSS around.
True enough. I think MS didn't expect the objections they got from the
"rental" idea. A lot of people are really annoyed at this. I have
customers who now WANT me to use Linux, who were in thrall of Redmond
before.

>And even if they do sue, it could become probitively expensive. ...
But still small compared to what they think they are protecting. They
will use this strategy until it is very clear that legal fess are taking
up more than a small proportion of revenue, and the strategy has then
failed.

>....Microsoft _finally_ learned that it was NT or bust for consumer Windows.
NT is almost a real OS in a lot of ways, and it was past time to shake off 
the 8088 legacy.

>> Something else sits on the OS (a component layer, desktop manager, user
>> interface, all it what you will). ...
>Which changes every 2-3 years.  .NET does this again, although it's
>really a means to get everyone to stop writing for DOS-based Windows,
>and actually implement "multiuser aware" applications.  
True enough. A lot of the .NET stuff reminds me of SAA, the IBM "architecture"
for applications promoted in the mid 80's. Turned out to be a new marketing 
wrapper and a few new API's, but nothing really new. Unless I'm mistaken, or
simply not paying attention (quite possible, given the need to actually work
for a living), .NET is a bunch of MS protocols (DCOM, DDE, ASP) bundled into
a somewhat more comprehensive wrapper, with maybe a couple of "new" (eg, XML
RPC) items added. Correct me if this is off-base, but I keep looking at this
stuff and I don't see anything fundamentally new, other than the hype.

>Something UNIX has been spoiled with since its inception.  ;-P
Yeah, it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it! :)

>...Microsoft used "buy back rebates" to actually _pay_ OEMs
>to ship MS Office instead of other suites.  Then when it had a 80%
>marketshare, it started charging $400/pop.
The OLDEST strategy in the book. Potters in Babylon did this as well.
The amazing thing is how effective it continues to be, especially 
ini light of....

>...illegal?  Hmmm, interesting.  
Yes, it's dumping with intent to restrain trade, covered under the 
Anti-trust act.

>Are PC OEMs stupid day in and day out? 
OEMs are interested in 2 things:
1) manufacturing and assembling the hardware a the lowest cost
2) Moving it out as fast as possible.
and to some degree these goals are antithetical. You can't have lowest
cost without ecomonies of scale, but that fills up the warehouse and 
gives you more inventory risk. The best way to do it is pre-sell as much
as you can. You can become hostage to key suppliers. The only real diffe-
rence between most people and Gates is that he understood this before any-
one else did, and he knew how to create the choke point.

>Bullies suck.  But regulated bullies are worse.
Agree COMPLETELY. This is why I'm so diappointed that DOJ caved, and it's
directly traceable back to the outcome of the 2000 election. I very much
doubt that a Gore DOJ would have switched direction like that, although
even as things were going, MS would not have been dealt with so as to avoid
ongoing difficulty.

Personally, I would have like a breakup into FIVE (not 2) entities. I do
not consider such a breakup to be "punishing" MS or its shareholders, and
I would in fact expect them to GAIN wealth over time. This is not about
punitive measures, antitrust *** IS *** about restoring health and balance
to the marketplace. Consider breakup alongthe following lines:

1. Operating systems (Windows and any other OS'es they wish to market, 
                      including Linux or BSD varients)

2. Applications (including Office and IE, again on any platform). I would
                permit some simple tools, like Notepad and an ftp client 
                to reamin with the OS as a practical matter, but that's 
                about it.

3. Network Services (MSN and other networking and cable efforts,like hotmail
                     and other services)

4. Financial services (would include Wallet and other financial holds that MS
                       has picked up over the years, like their bank[s]).

5. Manufacturing (even if completly outsourced, someone is making all those
                  Microsoft keyboards, mice, and X-boxes....)


I think each company would be quite formidible in its ability to compete, but
would, in each case, promte a much more level playing field in each segment
of the industry. Arguably, the components might do better than the whole in
some areas.

								Regards,
								---> RGB <---