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

[Adam Williams]

>>>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". 

Pretty much, "render frivilous or irrelevant" might be close too.  Alot
of Open Source contributors (including myself) seem to attach personal
worth to their creations.  Making something no one else will ever use
just doesn't quite have the same zing.  For example,  I personally get a
sense that I have contributed to something when I get a letter from a
German police department thanking me, and explaining that my LDAP
presentation played a key role in the network they are constructing. 
Not that I get a big head,  but thats the point of contributing.  If
Open Source can be pushed out of corporate entities ("real uses")  I
think an enourmous amount of brain power will drain away.  Sure geeks
will use it at home, and continue to tinker with it at Universities, but
all their "real" work will have to be done on a "real" platform.

Part of this belief/theory/assumption may rest on the fact that I think
there are fewer up-and-coming geeks than ~5 or ~10 years ago.  I could
be wrong,  but the computer courses at GRCC, GVSU, Calvin (yeah, I know,
whatever),  are *HEAVILY* M$ and task verses concept oriented.  And I
don't see any sign of a vital geek community at any of those
institutions.

>>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.

I don't think this matters, 1-2 years it WAY TOO LONG.    Not many
people will just "wait till it works".  And things like the Active
Directory PAC may never be reverse engineered,  as M$ has made
approaching that handful of bytes a legal mine field.

>>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...

True.  I imagined Linux would start at small/impoverished corporations
and non-profits.  But from what I've seen the opposite is true.  It
makes sense in retrospect,  large organizations have people of staff who
are aware of such issues as life-cycle. 

It is always useful for to point out to people who "don't get it" that
there was VisiCalc -> Lotus -> Excel, and Word Star -> Word Perfect ->
Word.  And CP/M before DOS.  Most people at the time seemed to view each
of these packaged as unshakable.  I have reviews of machines that say
things like "if only it were an 8 bit machine" because 16 bit CP/M
couldn't run the 8 bit applications.

It is some psychological disease that assumes tomorrow will be the same
as today,  but many large organizations seem to have woken up often
enough to a today very different from yesterday that they've learned
something.
 
>>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.

So do I.  I'm not uttering the above as a prophecy, but as a (IMHO)
reasonably possible chain of events/outcomes.

>>> 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.

Neither do I.  (BTW .Net uses SOAP and not XML-RPC,  SOAP is way more
complicated/convoluted).  .Net does contain some proprietary
functionality (I'm told) but I haven't figured out what that function is
beyond its authentication methodology.

There was a low-grade rumor of using PassPort as a Nation ID device. 
Might not be a bad thing (assuming the fascists are going to do
something like this anyway) so long as it comes with a proviso to open
the PassPort standard.

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

Yeap,  the System V IPC RPC is definitely dirty. :)
 
>>...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....

incredible short sightedness.  Way to much focus on near term profits
and this instants stock price.

>>Bullies suck.  But regulated bullies are worse.
>Agree COMPLETELY. 

Deregulating my electricity and gas certainly hasn't helped.  I've got
doubts that deregulating the telecom industry actually accomplished
something.  Call me an old-fashioned leftists, but there are LOTS of
markets that could do with a healthy dose of regulation.  Not of course
that regulation can't be stupid and counter productive, it can.  

I grew up on the grid of the O&A electrical co-operative,  as
bread-for-the-worker an organization as you'll find in west Michigan. 
My consumers energy bill I get today may be ALOT higher, but.... the
power is on.

I can imagine several ways to regulate the software industry that might
be a huge boon for users.

>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.

<RANT>
There is always the next election,  although I have scant hope Americans
will select an intelligent life form over a "comfortable" bear-swilling
ignoramous "I could hang with at the bar".  At least not it any near
future I can see.  I knew it was over last election when I heard people
interviewed using terms like "enlightened self-interest"!  Apparently
the meaning of 'enlightened' changed since I last checked.
</RANT>