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

Adam Williams advocacy@kalamazoolinux.org
05 May 2002 13:22:48 -0400


>>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.

All my comments, unless otherwise noted, apply to "the west"  That the
world may fork with asian, africa, and east east europe going one way
and the US, UK, and west europe another is certainly a possibility. 
Some might say that already happened, LONG before people had terms like
"web browser".

>>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

So?  The company I work for is in the boring 'Material Handling'
industry and we are always in court.  Lawyers are as constant a part of
modern corporate operation as accountants.  How many court cases is IBM
involved in?

>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.

Adopting other peoples good ideas is a bad thing?  If what they have
done was illegal they would be under investigation for copyright/patent
infringement.

>>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

True.

>greatest."  So when a new version comes out, they have an OSS

And many people are suddenly objecting to what they are told the
latest-n-greatest is.  I know lots of M$ jockeys who look at XP and
Office XP and say: What the *^$&*^*(@?

>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.

Newer M$ licensing actually lets one get around this.  We buy licenses
for Office that apply to any version of office, from 97 to XP.  Upgrade
or not,  M$ doesn't care, the check cleared.

>>es, 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.

A very much overlooked avenue.

>>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!

So is every company.  Our directors crab about it,  and then sail into
the next law-suit.  No different than the guy with the 31ft. RV griping
about petrol prices.  It hurts, sure, but not enough to out weight the
convenience.

>NT "died" as a "good OS" with version 3.51.  3.50 was the best ever. 

Amen!  If they had continued down the 3.5 path and been reasonably
priced, Linux would be in much tougher straits today.

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

I've heard some pretty good things about it from respectable sources, 
never looked into it personally.