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

Bryan J. Smith advocacy@kalamazoolinux.org
05 May 2002 10:56:19 -0400


On Sat, 2002-05-04 at 23:55, bob@acm.org wrote:
> I take Adam's meaning as "destroy", or "render moribund". 

Impossible.  Too many projects, too many people, many oversees.  They
_may_ be able to hurt more in the US than anywhere, but it's impossible
for them to deal with them all.

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

But at what cost?  Microsoft is currently spending $600M/year on legal
services.  NOT for the DOJ trial, but for many other, private lawsuits
that do NOT have anything to do with it.  Microsoft is one of the
world's biggest IP stealers, from the Pocket PC to the Ergonomic Mouse.

> 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 community.

I agree, and it means that free software developers spend far too much
time on something that could be better spent on developing software.

At the same time, their "upgrade cycle" is just as long.  And customers
are _finally_realizing_ that they do NOT need to have the "latest and
greatest."  So when a new version comes out, they have an OSS
alternative that is just as good -- possibly better for maintaining the
older formats.  And if a company missed two versions, then the choice is
simple, OSS is less of a headache.

> 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...

Agreed.  It is also good to sell them on OSS on Windows at the same
time.

> 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.

Or at least "limit" their "rental" to a $100 OS, but no apps.

The _other_thing_ you need to educate companies on is to _never_, _ever_
physically sign a licensing agreement to software that _can_ be
purchased "shrink wrapped" off-the-shelf.  I think _that_ should be our
#1 priority.  Inform people the rights they _lose_ when they sign such
an agreement -- at least outside of Maryland and Virginia which have
UCITA laws that make non-signature binding too.

> But still small compared to what they think they are protecting.

Not really.  Microsoft is already "bitching" about its $600M/year legal
bills.  If they really want to "cut them down," they'll stop pirating
other people's IP!

> 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.

As they are finding out with a number of things now.  I really think
Microsoft has "held off" on "pushing OSS projects around" because of
this.  Just look at the can of worms they unleached with something
simple like "Lindows."  ;-PPP

> NT is almost a real OS in a lot of ways, and it was past time to
> shake off the 8088 legacy.

Yes, a good combination of OS/2 and VMS, written by Digital and former
Digital employees now at Microsoft (long story).  I heard 80% of 64-bit
Windows was actually written by Digital itself internally.  Would NOT
surprise me since Digital made _better_ more "native" NT applications
than Microsoft's own appliciation's division!  Which was the problem. 
Microsoft itself, from the Visual Studio tools to its own apps
"infected" NT-based Windows with DOS-based Windows' poor design.

NT "died" as a "good OS" with version 3.51.  3.50 was the best ever. 
Cairo never saw the light of day because NT developers were too busy
fucking with Windows 95 compatibility and features.

> 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.

Like the Java class that turns a Java Run-time into a full-blown C#/.NET
CLI/CLR?  God I love it!

> 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.

You are correct.  Once I got "past" the hype, I realized .NET is 3
things:

1.  C# -- a Java Microsoft controls and is more C-centric and NOT so
"language independent"

2.  A new approach to security as well as 64-bit cleanliness, being that
their own applications division still cannot write NT native
applications -- let alone 3rd party ISVs -- and still use 16-bit
function calls

3.  A reorganization to unifying all their different protocols which
also introduces Win32/64 binary-only versions of select standards (e.g.,
encrypted, binary XML)

> Yeah, it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it! :)

Man, after I explain this to a Windows developer, they finally see the
light!  I'm sick and tired of the number of Windows developers, even who
use Borland products, that think GCC cannot be used because it is GPL. 
Nuts!

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

Yep.  *BUT* the reason you don't hear more of it is because of the 1995
Decree where the DOJ and Microsoft settled the issue.

> OEMs are interested in 2 things:
> 1) manufacturing and assembling the hardware a the lowest cost
> 2) Moving it out as fast as possible.

You forgot #3:
3)  Free R&D

That's why people stay Microsoft and Intel, because non-Microsoft and
non-Intel competitors don't have the cash to fork over for R&D.

> and to some degree these goals are antithetical. You can't have
> lowest cost without ecomonies of scale,

Which is one of the reason people should *NOT* hate Microsoft.  It's
just "good business" to work on volume.

> 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 difference between most
> people and Gates is that he understood this before anyone else did,
> and he knew how to create the choke point.

And how to take free, or even not-so-free, software and make it
commercial.  Hence why he's _scared_to_death_ of "copyleft" licenses.

> 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.

Actually, the US government is currently setting us up for a regulated
bully that _forces_ people to use Microsoft products.

> 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.

Actually, I've learned one thing about Democrats and Republicans -- they
_complement_ each other!  Democrats pass stupid legislation out of
popular opinion, whereas Republicans won't.  But when it comes to
enforcing them, the Democrats won't but the Republicans do!  Funny!

Give you two examples.  One is the Brady Bill.  It didn't even get
enforced in its first 3 years and hardly in its first 5, but once the
Republicans got in, even though most disagree with it, they are
enforcing it _far_more_ than the Democrats ever did!

Another is in my home state, Florida, where we have a 20 year-old
Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) requirement on government contracts. 
Passed by Democrats to appease minorities, when Lawton Chiles (Democrat)
was governor (1990-1997), he did *NOT* enforce it.  If you were not an
MBE, you could _easily_ get government contracts.  But when Jeb got in
(1998-current), damn if it wasn't enforced back to the full extent of
the law!

So, while I would think that a Gore DOJ would give Microsoft stiffer
penalties, they _would_ create more of a stranglehold on the market with
_exclusive_Microsoft_contracts_ on public works that would force more
public use of their software.  Anyone who saw the drafting of the Gore
Sr. tax increase as well as NAFTA _knows_ the Gore _out-n-out_lies_ to
push a _personal_agenda_ that gives him "kickbacks," while "doing the
right thing" in public!  It's a win-win situation for Gore and his
public image!

I loved it when the Gore mine blew up in his face though.  Damn that was
good.  Better yet when David Brinkley caught him lying about the Bush
Sr. tax increase -- something he helped personally orchistrate in
passing in the media by the "government stalls" in addition to
sponsoring the bill.  When Democrats are in charge, they play these
"games" in the public eye.  Republicans have their games too, but you
dnever_ hear about the "Contract With America" actually succeeding
(which it did!).

> 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.

Like the telephone industry?  What have they become?  A tax collector! 
It's a mess.  You're being _over_taxed_ on your telephone bill for
things you don't even use nor care about!  Same deal _will_happen_ with
Microsoft.  You think there is a "Microsoft tax" now???  Just wait!

The government regulating Microsoft would be like a school regulating a
bully.  Sure, it might be good for the simple-minded people who were
paying the bully their lunch money, but what about the kids that had
already "banded together" and told him no?  They now have to pay him
where as they had not before?!?!?!

> 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've got a better plan.

The US government, Microsoft's _largest_customer_, should demand the
equivalent of Peru's "freedom software" requirements as a _customer_,
NOT a "regulator."  Microsoft is scared shitless about how Peru is doing
it.  Mexico was easy because they sold "free software" as "cheaper." 
Peru is selling it as "free software" as in "freedom."  In the Peru
approach, Microsoft is _free_ to offer their products _as_long_ as they
adhere to strict guidelines on "freedom."

Damn it's tasty!  And a _much_better_way_!

> 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.

Everytime the government breaks up a company, it screws _everything_
up.  The telephone industry just mirrored what happened with the
petroleum industry years before.  And it will now with Microsoft.

-- Bryan

-- 
The US government could be 100x more effective, and 1/100th the
Constitutional worry, if it dictated its policy to Microsoft as
THE MAJOR CUSTOMER it is, and not THE REGULATOR it fails to be.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan J. Smith, SmithConcepts, Inc.   mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
Engineers and IT Professionals     http://www.SmithConcepts.com