Monopoly and Tyranny: Two Faces of Evil

The past few weeks have focussed the world on tyranny as one Arab tyranical regime after another was brought to heel by their citizens. In IT we have tyrants of our own: M$, Oracle, Apple among others. Common characteristics of monopolists in IT and tyrants in the world’s affairs are:

  • the desire to have monopoly for reasons of efficiency, unity or to maximize power/profits,
  • seeking monopoly/unitary leadership but with no patience to earn it through good works,
  • going beyond the social norms of behaviour to achieve monopoly, and,
  • eventually holding that the tyrant or monopolist is naturally in the position of power.

No doubt there are situations where central control is beneficial but to claim it is the way things should be when we know Nature revels in diversity as a means of building strong and durable ecosystems is wrong. Eventually this concentration of power leads to preservation of inefficiency/evil and the tyrant or monopoly falls apart. The lust for achieving and maintaining power at all costs kills innovation and enslaves people. My favourite example of this is M$ whose 100K staff earn tens of $billions annually. That’s about $6million each, beyond all reason. The value flowing to the corporation is the work of others, the slaves. Libya earns $billions from oil and their few million citizens earn an average of a few dollars per day. All the wealth goes to the few and the rest are slaves, working cheaply.

We have seen the brutality tyrants exhibit when their power is threatened. The same is true of M$. M$ takes steps to eliminate competition, not just to compete. That is evil and illegal.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

78 Responses to Monopoly and Tyranny: Two Faces of Evil

  1. Nightgoblin says:

    FOSS programmers invent things all the time because they constantly have to work around patents and other “IP” limitations.

  2. oldman wrote:“As i said not a lick of innovation here.”

    My Debian mirror for i386 has 34GB of .debs. Are you sure there is no innovation in there?

    e.g. Linux is a cooperative product of the world. It was modelled after POSIX but the code was created from the contributors. They copied little except code the contributors owned like JFS etc. The rest was all written from scratch. There have been many thousands of contributors. It is rude to claim none of them innovated.

    OTOH one does not really innovate in computer science. It is like addition. You take what is there and add to it. +1 is not innovation, just building.

    One of the coolest things about Debian GNU/Linux is APT (Advanced Packaging Tool). As far as I can tell it was developed by Debian uniquely and has been widely copied into MacOS and OpenSolaris. APT was a higher-level tool to use dpkg for handling .deb packages. So, for 10 years Debian GNU/Linux has had a tool that helps automate the building of systems while accounting for dependencies, version control updates and upgrades of complete systems, not just the OS or one application. That is something M$ is just getting to with an app store. That was an innovation and something beautiful that makes GNU/Linux a great system.

    I could look at PHP which is widely used on the web as a server-scripting language. PHP is FLOSS but its licence is not GPL compatible. It was innovative. It enabled a whole generation of web developers to emerge in the FLOSS world and likely was a major contribution to making GNU/Linux a big player on the web. Of course Linux and Apache were in there too but I have already written about Linux and Apache was similarly innovative.

    On the desktop I think OpenOffice.org was innovative and it matters not a whit that it started as closed software. Contributions to FLOSS come in all kinds. It also does not matter that one of its design parameters was to mimic Office. All the code was written from scratch. The menu is only the tip of the ice-berg. Most of the work was underneath. In fact, OpenOffice.org has essentially been written and re-written with so many releases and features. Interestingly, some of the features OpenOffice.org put in worked better in OpenOffice.org than in Office if you look at comparisons of the two over the years.
    ” they don’t waste time on superfluous features that don’t work, such as Word 2003’s crippling Master Document feature. Instead, you get a word processor built to create professional-looking documents with ease and efficiency.”

  3. oldman says:

    “Both have been opened and extensively remodeled by the FLOSS community.”

    As i said not a lick of innovation here. That same community would not have been capable of building this from scratch, and is certainly not capable of innovating.

    ““Why didn’t Google develop Android on top of that other OS?”. The answer is clear. Google did not want the baggage.”

    More likely they didnt want to pay any royalties to anyone Pog? Why else would the build Davlik? They had already expropriated linux kernel code, stripped it of all the extraneous crap. Why not use GNU? Tools.

    I suspect that they avoided GPL’d code as much as possible because they knew that the viral GPL license would kill any commercial market. Creating Davlik and licensing it under the Apache license was genius. The community got the source code to the engine, but all those vendors who wish to do so get to keep their code closed. Now all that Google has to do is convince the judge that Davlik is not an illegal end run around the the Java, which is still closed for mobile devices.

  4. Both have been opened and extensively remodeled by the FLOSS community. It took about a year, for instance to get all the non-free stuff out of OpenOffice.org and the result was buggy but a year later, it was working pretty well. M$ takes that long to test a beta. Android is FLOSS and Google is a FLOSS company. They used Linux underneath for instance, a wise choice. Ask yourself, “Why didn’t Google develop Android on top of that other OS?”. The answer is clear. Google did not want the baggage.

  5. oldman says:

    “Consider Android/Linux v Phoney 7, for instance.”

    Android was developed by a commercial software company which was bought by google, also a commercial entity.
    Openoffice was a commercial package bought by Sun.

    Neither package was created by the FOSS community.

  6. Strange the Bank of Russia consolidated 74 data-centres and 200 servers onto a few IBM z-eries mainframes running Oracle+Z/OS for databases but used GNU/Linux for all their applications. They made a different choice. It works for them. see http://www-01.ibm.com/software/success/cssdb.nsf/CS/STRD-7KNCM7?OpenDocument&Site=eserverzseries&cty=en_us

    China and India do develop FLOSS and some of it is used globally. At the moment a lot of their developers are still working on infrastructure but they have lots of talent which folks like M$ like to import and out-source to.

    GNU/Linux is not about mediocrity. Consider Android/Linux v Phoney 7, for instance. OpenOffice.org is not mediocre. It works for hundreds of millions of users today. Android is experiencing explosive growth ~150% per annum.

  7. oldman says:

    “How about the flexibility of the desktop?”

    What about it Pog? None of this is anything more than eye candy once work is getting done, an none of it is innovative.

    Again, show me an FOSS desktop application that is innovative.

    “Having a foreign company run IT in a country as capable as China or India is silly. ”

    If Chinese or Indians or indian companies wish to take advantage of commercial applications and hardware coming out of the US or Europe, they can and will o so until something better comes along. the freedom to do so is called choice.

    The bank of china chose to run its entire banking operation on a par of US made IBM System z mainframes, and even recorded a benchmark in terms of high throughput (http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/news/announcement/20070208_annc.html)

    Is this silly? Pog?

    And BTW, if one of these countries actually succeeds in bringing a software product to market that captures US market share, it will not only be tolerated, but embraced.

    “Why should the world accept monopoly?”

    Why should the world accept mediocrity?

  8. oldman wrote:“Please show me the innovative desktop software.”

    How about the flexibility of the desktop? I love having multiple desktop environments, the virtual desktops, the transparently linked networked apps etc. You can get that with that other OS but you have to buy stuff from different vendors. With GNU/Linux I get it all from one source for the same low price.

    Those other freedoms are more fundamental certainly but Free Software can play a big role in supporting those freedoms. Just ask the Chinese and Indians who are developing FLOSS for their own countries to build a local IT industry. Having a foreign company run IT in a country as capable as China or India is silly. The USA would no tolerate some company in China being on every PC in the country. Why should the world accept monopoly?

  9. oldman says:

    “Freedom is not just about doing the things you are free to do. It is also about an environment where such things are possible. This promotes innovation. Developers do use a lot of those freedoms and they produce software that end-users can run as much as they want without worrying about product activation codes, malware, etc. It’s a good deal for everyone.”

    WHAT innovation, Pog? I have yet to see anything in the way of Linux desktop software that is anything more than a clone of some piece of commercial software.

    Please show me the innovative desktop software.

    I DO see a lot of good enough software that can be a boon for those who either cant afford commercial software or who don’t want anything to do with commercial software, bu

    but that is not innovation.

    “The Free in Free Software is about the four freedoms: running the code, examining it, modifying it and distributing. ”

    Once again you talk of “freedoms” without even acknowledging my comments, fair enough. However you shoul be old enough to know of another 4 freedoms – those that were stated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the dark hours at the start of World War Two

    1. Freedom of speech and expression
    2. Freedom of worship
    3. Freedom from want
    4. Freedom from fear

    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms)

    I think of these TRUE freedoms as I watch those in the Middle East attempting to win their freedom from tyrants, Richard Stallmans list seems insignificant at best in comparison.

  10. He brought some numbers on the size of Free Software. That was fun. I have a mirror of Debian GNU/Linux and know the size very well. I have read the value of the Linux kernel (megabytes) is $billions. Having this amount of Free Software (tens of gigabytes) available to millions of people for a very small cost is a wonderful thing. The extreme flexibility and ease of management is icing on the cake. The mirror of i386 comes to 37gB. That software allowed me to free my wife from that other OS which had slowed to unusability for the umpteenth time. I was mad as Hell and wasn’t going to take it any longer. She is free and I am free of having to re-install that other OS. Priceless.

  11. Free in Free Software is not about price. Everyone pays something for Free Software. The Free in Free Software is about the four freedoms: running the code, examining it, modifying it and distributing. The combination of those does tend to make the licensing cost zero but that is a side-effect.

    The world needs software and can make its own. The world can share the software that it creates. Then everyone gets the software they need at minimum cost. It’s a great system. The benefits to the end-user are obvious. The end-user gets a lot of software for little cost to the end-user. The benefits to large organizations like businesses, educational systems, governments etc. is that instead of paying licensing fees, they can pay developers to get the job done. SUN, a single company, bought the producers of StarOffice which became OpenOffice.org for less than a single round of licensing fees. They ended up converting that to Free Software and sharing it with the world. That’s what Free Software is, the world getting what it needs and sharing.

  12. It’s not just about users. The end-user benefits when the developer is free to do those things. The end-user certainly benefits from the freedom to run the software on as many installations as he wished. Even the end-users like schools who may not be into installations can get software more cheaply this way. It works for everyone.

    GNU/Linux is not a tragedy but a success. It is a widely used OS all around the world.

  13. Freedom is not just about doing the things you are free to do. It is also about an environment where such things are possible. This promotes innovation. Developers do use a lot of those freedoms and they produce software that end-users can run as much as they want without worrying about product activation codes, malware, etc. It’s a good deal for everyone.

  14. Richard Chapman says:

    Thanks JoeMonco.

    I was here before your words. I am here with your words and I’ll be here after your words. We are just doing are thing. You guys come around acting like we didn’t curb our dogs in your neighborhood.

    You haven brought anything new to this blog. I don’t even know why you’re here.

  15. JoeMonco says:

    Correction:

    Wrong link: “[…] can be found in kernel.org (http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/binutils/)[…]” -> “[…] can be found in kernel.org (ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/)[…]”

  16. JoeMonco says:

    “Are you free to examine, modify, and distribute the code?”

    That’s depends on how you define the word “free”. Economically, the answer is always no, for all software in existence.

    The English translation of War and Peace is sized at 3.1MB in UTF-8 encoding according to one source (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2600). Keep in mind that the language in question is English, which you are supposed to read from left to right and from top to bottom. The latest GNU “binutils” toolset, which is downloadable from the official FTP (http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/binutils/), is 24MB in size, or 7.7 length equivalent of War and Peace. The latest stable Linux kernel, “2.6.37.2”, of which source tarballs can be found in kernel.org (http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/binutils/), boasts a size of 88.1MB, or 28 length equivalent of War and Peace. Keep in mind also that all these tarballs go a few times larger when ungzip’d, and are mostly written in C and inline assembly in their original ASCII form – or in other words, languages with logical flows that go up and down as well as sideways. Think about the time (man-hour) you will need for one person to just understand the storyline of War and Peace (without consulting Wikipedia, that is), and then think about what kind of investment you will need to get a new team of developers acquainted with the source code of any of the aforementioned software project to do whatever modifications that the “community” won’t support and that you will have re-implement after each release from the upstream. “Free” in this sense is simply ironic if not utterly unrealistic, if you ask me.

    The thing about being able to read the source code is even more a no-brainer than that about being able to afford to do so. The fact is, many so-called “proprietary” software developers don’t mind showing you the code at all as long as you present them with a good deal involving a pile of cash. Some companies even have their own mechanisms to welcome exactly just that (http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx). But then you might say, “I still have to pay for it!” Look – the reality is that you have pay for the binary you run on your computer as well, so it’s not like the source is going to be a no-string-attached give-away now, is it? Besides, if you can’t afford to even acquire the source code in the first place, then I seriously wonder how you can possibly afford to support a modification that the originating entity doesn’t, particular with things like MS Windows or Office.

    Software itself isn’t free either. When you build a piece of software, there are inherently expenses involved, whether they are time, money or just the electricity you run your computer on. Claiming “rights” on things you have no input in due to the sole reason that you have signed an agreement to gain limited access to it is simply ridiculous in every sense of the word. It’s like claiming “rights” to vegetables that you didn’t grow, paychecks you didn’t earn, or homework you didn’t do. The notion of such “rights” goes directly against even most fundamental of established principles of the Western civilization, let alone the national or political specificities on when or where you can share something or how.

    Any more questions?

  17. D-G says:

    “Are you free to examine, modify, and distribute the code?”

    Why would a USER want that? That you can do with the source code as you please (except for code under the only semi-free GPL) is an inherent necessity arising from the whole concept of open source. That doesn’t mean that it’s a measurable criterion by which you can judge software from a USER’s point of view. The average Linux USER who’s not interested in ideological warfare (does such a user exist?) isn’t interested in reading code either. No, the USER wants to run applications to get the job done.

    This brings me to another basic truth which Linux evangelist like yourself vehemently oppose: Linux is not more secure just because it’s open source. I won’t even go down the path of Linux having less marketshare and all that. But the brutal truth is that DESKTOP LINUX lacks developers everywhere. And USERS are not DEVELOPERS. So we gotta ask ourselves a basic question:

    Who then shall these nameless many eyes be that tirelessly scour the code for security holes day and night?

    Easy enough. Apart from a few high-profile projects they don’t exist. The average Linux USER — just like every other average computer USER — isn’t even so much as interested in filing a bug report. And the average USER definitely isn’t interested in reading code. But most Linux DEVELOPERs likewise aren’t interested in USERs’ opinions and demands.

    So you are given a fantastic CHOICE as a Linux USER: STFU, RTFM, live with it, and eventually become a half-arsed “DEVELOPER” out of desperation. Congratulations, you’ve become enslaved in the GNU/Linux machine.

    Or say goodbye, install that other OS, grab a (free-as-in-speech or free-as-in-beer or commercial) software from the shelf that does what you want, and live happily ever after. No need to look at the code.

    And that so many people rather CHOOSE the latter is after all the ever-lamentable tragedy of GNU/Linux, isn’t it?

  18. oldman says:

    “Are you free to examine, modify, and distribute the code?”

    Have your EVER maintained someone elses code Pog? Have you ever had to do a fit gap analysis when the next version of said code came out an you now had to figure out which of your modifications now needed to be ported to the new version? HAve you ever had to deal with having to wade through changes in someone elses library which broke your modified code?

    I have had the freedom to examine and modify that you cheridh Pog, And I can assure you that it is a crap load of work.

    I used to do it because the code I was working with was the only game in town to get my work done. In the end the thing that save me was the appearance of a commercial package that did exactly what I needed it to do. Like all commercial packages, it didnt have source, and it wasn’t cheap..

    I didn’t care. I paid my money and It allowed me to just get on with what I wanted to do without “playing programmer” ever again.

    SO as to your question, the answer is

    THose of us who just use computers and commercial software don’t care, and in fact most non computer hobbyist/hacker types don’t care either.

    They just want to get stuff done not d-ck around with software.

    And I and they are also exercising our freedom to do so, just as you exercise your freedom not to.

    Consider this Pog.

  19. Are you free to examine, modify, and distribute the code?

  20. JoeMonco says:

    “Robert, these guys are loons.”

    Loon. What an interesting description. Ironically, though, the same word is also used whenever this blog is cited at LHB.

    “They come here to stir things up, that’s all.”

    I am by no means speaking in behalf of other posters here, but I can reassure you that my posts here are all my sincere gestures of pity for the extent of intellectual bankruptcy displayed here. Unlike MS, I sure don’t happen to have $8 million lying around, but that doesn’t mean I can’t put together a something with my fingers and a keyboard, right?

    “We could be talking crochet vs knitting. It wouldn’t matter.”

    If you start talking about crochet vs knitting, then you sure as hell won’t be seeing me here.

    “Business must be slow over at the linuxhaters club. They also have a lot of time on their hands judging by their wordy posts.”

    Judging by the amounts of blog entries and comments here per day, I am pretty sure Pogson and associates, too, “have a lot of time on their hands”, right?

    Think before you speak.

    “Keep it up boys. The more of this busy work you do, the less damage you’ll do elsewhere.”

    Damage? That’s an interesting word you have used there. Would you mind elaborating to everyone here on that “damage” you claim would take place?

    “So you don’t care about freedom. Good for you. The freedom inherent in FOSS and Linux is what attracted me to it.”

    This, too, is an interesting use of words. Now, would you care to define what this “freedom” is with respect to authors of software and the users thereof? I think this will make a very intriguing discussion topic.

    “So you want to insult us for promoting and cherishing freedom?”

    Cherish whatever pleases you, but the act of promoting is certainly not what one should take lightly or carry out with libels and deceits.

    Tread carefully.

  21. D-G says:

    @Joe

    You still don’t get it.

    If I have to make do with what’s available under GNU/Linux, because I’m adhering to the oh so pure philosophy of GNU/Linux, even though the software available under GNU/Linux is not sufficient to get my work done, then I’m not free … I’m unfree.

    I’m very free on Windows 7, thank you very much. Even if people like you like to claim otherwise. Hey, look, I can install LibreOffice on Windows 7 with one download and a few mouse clicks! No waiting for the distribution to catch up with the next release, no compiling of source code, no using a PPA or a third-party repository. That’s freedom, Joe, while the likes of you like to spout about abstract freedom where it’s most important that you can look at the source code.

    I also find it kind of insulting that you (or rather the great Mr. Pogson) insult me by basically implying that I support tyranny by willingly buying Microsoft products. (Yes, Joe, you probably have a hard time grasping that concept, but I willingly bought Windows 7 for my not-off-the-shelf computer.) I mean, that’s what you’re getting at, isn’t it? I give Microsoft my money with which they can do their evil, evil deeds.

    Well, no. I give Microsoft my money because they offer me at a reasonable price a superior platform for free and unfree applications which allows me to get things done. And since nearly every good free software runs on Windows, too: case closed.

    Have fun being free. I’m more free.

  22. Joe says:

    @ D-G

    So you don’t care about freedom. Good for you. The freedom inherent in FOSS and Linux is what attracted me to it. For me freedom is non-negotiable. And there is a lot of freedom in free software.

    So you want to insult us for promoting and cherishing freedom? Go ahead and insult us. I’m not going to return the favor.

  23. Richard Chapman says:

    Robert, these guys are loons. They come here to stir things up, that’s all. We could be talking crochet vs knitting. It wouldn’t matter. They are trying to make trouble any way they can. I did notice they weren’t subtle about showing up. All at once. I guess they’re too timid to stand alone. They seem to find courage in numbers. Business must be slow over at the linuxhaters club. They also have a lot of time on their hands judging by their wordy posts. Keep it up boys. The more of this busy work you do, the less damage you’ll do elsewhere.

  24. D-G says:

    “So much venom, so little truth, so much hate, all squeezed through a sophomoric attitude.”

    Are you describing yourself? Very fitting. Most devoted Linux evangelists/apologists have two characteristics: a) no clue about Linux and Windows, b) passionate hatred for Microsoft & Co. Blog posts like this where Gaddafi and Gates basically become two sides of the same coin just show how much you people are out of touch with reality.

    Enslave yourself to GNU/Linux and you’re the most unfree you’ve ever been. Because then lunatic freedom ideology dictates you. GNU/Linux means proliferation of mediocrity. The only measurable criterion in the world of GNU/Linux is the “freeness”. Everything else is negotiable — and secondary. Nowhere does more shoddy, p*ss-poor software exist than in the world of GNU/Linux. Choose between outright bad software and mediocre software. Promising the promised land at no cost for at least a decade now. And not delivering distribution release after distribution release, year after year.

    Looks like real tyranny to me. I think the Chinese Communist Party calls it “Democratic Dictatorship”. Yes, that’s what GNU/Linux is. A democratic dictatorship. Unfortunately the Chinese are a hell of a lot smarter at managing it. That’s why they use Windows, too.

  25. One school in 2004 had some techies from head office sneak in an put 2003 on my GNU/Linux terminal server even after hiring my replacement who was cool with GNU/Linux, but at least for half a year students got to see a great OS. The school where I first installed GNU/Linux on some 8-year-old PCs kept them running until they died. I don’t know of any others who have reverted and many are quite proud of the systems I left them, giving superior performance on a shoestring budget.

  26. Thing is, many of the Linux “haters” are also Linux experts with many years of experience. We are not all MCSEs or Microsoft employees. I’m not afraid of Linux. I use it daily at home and work.

    Understand that it’s *not* about the software. It’s all about the *politics*. And even then, it’s not hate. More like “contempt”. Free software politics are perhaps the silliest sort of politics around, because the value of a program is measured not by its functionality but by an arbitrary notion of “freedom”, a word that has been redefined by the cult leader RMS to suit his own ends: “It’s not free unless it’s GNU.” Measured like this, a “free” program is better than a “non-free” program even if the free program is barely functional.

    We are supposed to tolerate bad software and enjoy it as if we were doing some sort of electronic penance to guarantee ourselves a spot in GNU/Heaven. This acceptance of bad software makes improvement slow if it happens at all, particularly in conjuction with the ideological opposition to copyrights, patents and even the very idea of selling software as a business model.

    The whole F/OSS “movement” is so ridiculously self-righteous that lofty disdain seems to be the best option. Hence “Linux Hater”. Please, have a look through the blog archives over there, and find all of the above explained in more detail.

  27. I.P.Friely says:

    How many of your “users” have gone back to Windows behind your back?

  28. I do not understand the hate either. GNU/Linux is not out to get anyone. Why can’t they just live and let live? I can understand some IT folks figuring that the longer they can delay becoming familiar with GNU/Linux the easier will be their lives and there is a point there but really, there is plenty of work for everyone. No need to keep out any technology. They can sell and service GNU/Linux too. There should be less service eventually but that is years ahead. Installing and configuring GNU/Linux has been great work for me, fun, useful and appreciated by users.

  29. Richard Chapman says:

    “linuxhaters.blogspot.com”

    So *they* are the “haters”. I knew that.

    They must be getting lonely talking to themselves over at the linuxhaters. So they come over here and try to drum up some business. I’d like to feel sorry for them but they won’t let me. So much venom, so little truth, so much hate, all squeezed through a sophomoric attitude. You know what the root of hate is, don’t you haters? It’s fear. GNU/Linux scares that crap out of you and every time you put it down you only confirm that fear.

  30. JoeMonco says:

    “Plugging IE into Lose ’95 which was distributed under exclusive deals with OEMs was key. Buying up installation CDs and making exclusive deals with ISPs was not about selling a superior product.”

    As far as I remember, Netscape was free for download during the few year gap between Netscape 4 and 6. In fact, I even remember Netscape Navigator 3/4 being in ISP “installation CDs”, in all kinds of “Lose ’95” -centric magazines and even in utterly web-irrelevant device driver media albeit all the hoopla about “anti-trust”. If Netscape was by any means worth using, people would have downloaded it (without charge) and used it despite the slowness of household Internet connection in general at the time. Obviously, that’s not the case, and instead of catching up with the changes of the world-wide-web, Netscape simply stayed and stagnated as a clunky, old piece of junk even after the dot-com boom has gone bust. People wanted the web for all the things that it had promised to deliver, and Netscape didn’t cut the mustard simply because it was too obsolete and neglected to offer any superior or even satisfactory results, not because of some Man-In-Black conspiracy involving Bill Gates sneaking into people’s homes and destroying every last copy of the Navigator (or else I could not see any sound explanation for MS killing it). Contrary to what you believed, people weren’t stupid, and if they didn’t see any good reason to trouble themselves with an alternative, they simply wouldn’t bother. The same went for both IE (which people had already switched to by droves by the time IE 5 was release) and Netscape (which people had largely forgotten by the end of 2000). Netscape didn’t have a proper plan to renew its code base, and when IE came in and Netscape realized that it had a market entrant to compete with, everything it did was all too little too late. All the excuses on earth simply could not justify Netscape’s complacency in its dealing – juvenile “M$ sux” rhetoric included.

  31. Linturd fighter says:

    “Netscape was far superior to anything M$ had for years. So, M$ had to resort to other tactics to establish IE as the go-to browser. Plugging IE into Lose ’95 which was distributed under exclusive deals with OEMs was key.”

    Fine that’s your opinion. Dig through internet archives and you will find many contemporaries saying just the opposite, especially about how Netscape’s standard compliance was virtually nonexistent. You can also find a number articles about how it was extremely buggy it was. Also, you seem to despise proprietary software but you somehow worship Netscape which was not only proprietary itself, Netscape was basically the progenitor of all the mess when it came to having to render all sorts of proprietary extensions to HTML (which were mostly coming from Netscape). Basically the old Netscape embodies everything bad that you freetards whine about IE6 yet you somehow hold it on this esteemed pedestal. It’s rather bizarre and extremely hypocritical. Finally, regardless of what “M$” had done, Netscape was going to fail anyway because selling a browser, as Opera as found out, was not a sustainable business model. They were doomed no matter what.

  32. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but it is clear to me that Netscape was far superior to anything M$ had for years. So, M$ had to resort to other tactics to establish IE as the go-to browser. Plugging IE into Lose ’95 which was distributed under exclusive deals with OEMs was key. Buying up installation CDs and making exclusive deals with ISPs was not about selling a superior product. Proof is that M$ spend hundreds of millions of dollars on IE and gave it away. M$ is not a charity. Are they not supposed to get a return on investment? Why the bundling? They new it was an inferior product they had to force-feed to consumers and businesses.

  33. JoeMonco says:

    “I seriously doubt this guy is even old enough to remember those days. Quite obviously from his post he was not really “present” during the time in question.”

    How about me then? I am old enough to remember crap that you probably don’t. Wanna bet?

    “In actuality the early versions of Internet Explorer were garbage. Constant glitches, crashes, and problems were common with it.”

    So did Netscape, but since everyone was too busy putting “no-IE” gif icons on their ghastly Geocities/Tripod/Angelfile websites, there was hardly anyone there with a loud enough voice to point out how crap Netscape actually was.

    “At the time I was using Win95 and attempted to use the IE version of the day instead of Netscape. IE was so horrible I went running back to Netscape and never used IE ever again unless I had to while working on a customers system without another choice. IE did not really become anywhere near stable until much later. The first versions were truly crap.”

    I used IE 3-6 back in the 90s. IE 3 was mediocre even at the time its release. The time IE 4 came in was when Netscape began to lose grounds (hence the “anti-trust” hoopla). Then Netscape sat on their bums while everyone else was buzzing about “DHTML” and all other stuff until the Y2K hype had even gone the way of the disco, and when Netscape 6 finally came out in mid-2000, virtually no one cares about Netscape any more except, ironically, stubborn old fools like myself.

    “As to the also bulls**t claim that Microsoft simply created a better web browser, no, Internet Explorer did NOT come from Microsoft at all nor was it “better”.”

    MS did acquire the rendering engine from an spin-off company of University of Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass_Mosaic), but the one shipped with Winodws was the one MS have reworked exclusively for IE over the version increments. Otherwise, every version of IE would have rendered things the exact same way all others did and without additional features (except everyone could tell from their experience that this was obviously not true).

    “In true Microsoft fashion they screwed over Spyglass and did not pay the royalties as agreed. As has happened many times over the years Spyglass had to sue Microsoft.”

    Spyglass did stipulate a fixed quarterly fee and percentage share of revenue from IE as part of the license agreement. But, again, as we all know, what MS did was basically just bundling the browser to Windows 95 “A” and other subsequent releases of the operating system (hence, again, the “anti-trust” hoopla), and Spyglass didn’t have a share of that profit due to the plain and obvious reason that there wasn’t any marked value for all versions of IE. The measly $8 million settlement was a clear indication that Spyglass simply did not have a case for what it was suing for, or else the settlement (as per other similar cases) would have easily gone over a hundred times more of that magnitude.

    “I could go on puncturing the shills/trolls balloons quite easily but why bother. If they are as incredibly ignorant of the facts as their posts demonstrate they are, as I said earlier….”they are going through life with their fingers in their ears, blinders over their eyes, and letting Waggener/Edstrom control their verbal output.””

    You didn’t puncture any balloons. All you said was basically nothing more than the “M$ sux lol” kind of drivel that I wouldn’t expect more or less from a 15-year-old. Next time, why not tell everyone here about how you ran back from Win 98 to Red Hat 6 for burning your saucy photo stash or head-banging Metellica music to CDs in your basement? I heard this kind of stuff made good stories in the “Ol’ Seasoned IT Staff” section of Slashdot somewhere.

    “BTW Pog, start checking IP addresses.”

    Don’t forget to check under your bed as well.

  34. Not a loon says:

    “Woohoo! A whopping 8 million bucks!”

    From the same wiki article you quoted:

    “Microsoft licensed Spyglass Mosaic in 1995 for US$2 million”

    8 million seems to be in the price range the deals with spyglass were taking place anyway.

    “BTW Pog, start checking IP addresses. My guess is this sudden appearance of a troll herd actually has 1 or 2 IP addresses. Ban the duplicates.”

    Wrong. I’ll tell you a secret, the new posters are coming from linuxhaters.blogspot.com

    Yes, that site is biased, just like this one. You are free to post there and confront the “trolls” if you want.

  35. I know hundreds of millions goes to screwing the competition rather than producing a better product.

  36. M$ does not pay that well. The surplus funds are a measure of the power they abuse by buying out competitors and to pay for anti-competition mercenaries like the OEMs and retailers.

  37. lpbbear says:

    “Wow, another idiot who believes the nostalgic, romanticized version of Netscape’s history rather than the real one. Netscape lost because IE was increasingly getting better and Netscape stagnated.”

    I seriously doubt this guy is even old enough to remember those days. Quite obviously from his post he was not really “present” during the time in question.

    In actuality the early versions of Internet Explorer were garbage. Constant glitches, crashes, and problems were common with it. At the time I was using Win95 and attempted to use the IE version of the day instead of Netscape. IE was so horrible I went running back to Netscape and never used IE ever again unless I had to while working on a customers system without another choice. IE did not really become anywhere near stable until much later. The first versions were truly crap.

    As to the claim that “Netscape Communications stole the code for their browser from the NCSA”….total bulls**t.

    “Netscape Navigator was later developed by James H. Clark and many of the original Mosaic authors; however, it intentionally shared no code with Mosaic. Netscape Navigator’s code descendant is Mozilla.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_%28web_browser%29)

    As to the also bulls**t claim that Microsoft simply created a better web browser, no, Internet Explorer did NOT come from Microsoft at all nor was it “better”.

    “After unsuccessfully trying to license the Netscape Navigator browser, Microsoft turned to Spyglass and their Mosaic. In 1995, Microsoft licensed Mosaic from Spyglass as the basis of Internet Explorer 1.0, which was released as an add-on to Windows 95 in the Microsoft Plus! software package. The deal stipulated that Spyglass would receive a base quarterly fee for the Mosaic license plus a royalty from Microsoft’s Internet Explorer revenue.”

    In true Microsoft fashion they screwed over Spyglass and did not pay the royalties as agreed. As has happened many times over the years Spyglass had to sue Microsoft.

    “Microsoft subsequently bundled Internet Explorer with Windows, and thus (making no direct revenues on IE) paid only the minimum quarterly fee. In 1997, Spyglass threatened Microsoft with a contractual audit, in response to which Microsoft settled for US$8 million.

    All versions of the Internet Explorer created before Internet Explorer 7 (released October 18, 2006) acknowledged Spyglass as the licensor for the IE browser code. The About window on these versions contained the text “Distributed under a licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc.”

    Woohoo! A whopping 8 million bucks! I’m sure slimeball Bill danced with joy at that settlement. Probably had to go break one of his kids piggy banks for that one.

    I could go on puncturing the shills/trolls balloons quite easily but why bother. If they are as incredibly ignorant of the facts as their posts demonstrate they are, as I said earlier….”they are going through life with their fingers in their ears, blinders over their eyes, and letting Waggener/Edstrom control their verbal output.”

    BTW Pog, start checking IP addresses. My guess is this sudden appearance of a troll herd actually has 1 or 2 IP addresses. Ban the duplicates.

  38. William Nomoy says:

    My bad. Maybe it’s time I retired. Still it is much higher ratio of revenue to salaries than a normal business.

    Try comparing Net revenue to salaries, it’s still a stupid metric my any means, you know, as in after employee wages and expenses are accounted for.

    even then, all you get is an indication of what their margins look like, and margins vary from sector to sector and industry to industry. You’ll mind much higher margins for companies like Apple or Oracle who thrive on the low volume/high margin business model (albeit being in different sectors, the former deals with consumers, the later with top tier enterprise). You’d find comparatively low margins with companies like Acer or Dell who thrive in the high volume/razor-thin margin model.

    Or are you suggesting that a company’s revenue is somehow tied to their workforce, or are you trying to argue that everything which does not go to worker salaries goes to the management, because production costs are a work of fiction?

    You know, almost 1/6th of that gross revenue (~$8 billion) gets dumped in to R&D each year? Millions go toward marketing, equipment, stocking the campus cafeteria, power, bandwith, external services (Akamai, for example is not a charity), infrastructure, etc, etc, etc.

  39. Not a loon says:

    “My bad. Maybe it’s time I retired. Still it is much higher ratio of revenue to salaries than a normal business.”

    Wait a sec, are you still assuming that all 90 thousand MS employees get 600k each?!

    OK, this is completely retarded, but let’s say Pogson is right about that. All MS employees get paid 6 millions or 600k a year (rofl). This would completely invalidate his “M$ is teh evil” crap. Which corporation pays 6 million/ 6 hundred thousand dollars to about every employee?

    That would make Microsoft the best, most ethical and most caring company in the whole world of all time.

    An “ebil” company that treats all its employees extremely well is an oxymoron.

  40. 6X10^10 / 89X10^3 = 674000

    My bad. Maybe it’s time I retired. Still it is much higher ratio of revenue to salaries than a normal business.

    Thanks for the correction…

  41. Ray says:

    “Gross revenue of M$ ~$60billion. Divide that by the number of employees. That’s a measure of the power of monopoly.”

    That’s 600,000 each, considering that it has 89 thousand employees. 😀

  42. Linturd fighter says:

    “Everyone should begrudge an established and thriving business dumping product below cost in order to eliminate competition.”

    Actually if not for IE we would all still be paying for overpriced, buggy, non-standards compliant Netscape rather than a slew of competing free browsers. Netscape was going to lose anyway because charging people for a browser was never a sustainable model. Besides, why are you freetards so in love with Netscape? They were the kings of proprietary extensions to HTML. The very same things that you same people bash IE6 for, though Netscape was doing it far longer than Microsoft. The only reason you have the open source Firefox browser was because of Netscape losing the browser wars.

  43. So, you start a small business with $500K of your own money and $2million from investors. Do you expect to hire 100 people and have revenue of $600million? That’s what M$ is doing. M$ is a scam.

  44. Ubuntu has broken even recently.

    The difference between Ubuntu distributing GNU/Linux at no cost to the end-user and what M$ did is that M$ did it while having a monopoly power in the market. Ubuntu does not have monopoly power. No one should begrudge a business giving free sample. Everyone should begrudge an established and thriving business dumping product below cost in order to eliminate competition.

  45. ROFLCOPTER says:

    LOL

  46. NOT A LOON - HONEST! says:

    “Gross revenue of M$ ~$60billion. Divide that by the number of employees. That’s a measure of the power of monopoly.”

    What about investors? Are you that obtuse that you don’t know how the modern business world operates? Seriously, you’re more confused than a hungry baby at a topless bar.

  47. Felchy Ferret says:

    lpbbear blathered:

    “Despite what our visiting MS shill/trolls say its obvious Microsoft has killed scores of companies over the years. Its a fact. (Get The Facts)”

    From the online Oxford Dictionary:
    Fact – “a thing that is known or proved to be true”

    From the online Oxford Dictionary:
    Opinion – “a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge”

    What’s obvious my little lost loontard is that you’ve confused fact and opinion.

    Unless of course you have some references to back up your “fact”.

    Hmmm?

  48. Meatloaf says:

    “Microsoft sought to increase the product’s share of browser usage by giving it away for free”

    Just like Ubuntu.

    No seriously: Canonical is not profitable. The rich founder (who made the money with another business) subsidizes it.

  49. Ray says:

    “Netscape is one that was killed. They had a product widely used and M$ did illegal things to suppress it: exclusive dealing, buying up stocks and integrating IE with Lose ’95. M$ did not compete. They killed.”

    That reminds me of a book from ’97 about optimizing web sites. In it, it told of how IE was comforming to web standards of it’s day (CSS), but Netscape is faster. And IE’s free for corperate use too.

    BTW, the trolls are getting annoying, please do something about them. 🙁

  50. Linturd fighter says:

    “In addition to improving the quality of Internet Explorer, Microsoft sought to increase the product’s share of browser usage by giving it away for free.”

    OH MY GOD!! How dare they make a better quality product and then give it away for free!!! HOW EVIL OF MICROSOFT!!! Oh wait… So basically, as we said, Netscape was killed due to a shitty quality product that no one wanted to pay for anymore.

  51. Not a loon says:

    I must say – even IF Microsoft only won the browser wars because of dirty tactics. At the end of the day – so what?

    This happens every day in the corporate world.

    Intel strong armed OEMs in 1999 so that they should not support the AMD Athlon.

    IBM made deals with the friggin nazis to support their death camp machinery, for God’s sake.

    OK, this was a long time ago, but freetards still whine about “dirty MS deeds” from the 80s.

    If they can remember stupid bullshit from the 80s, like that DOS wasn’t originally from MS (they mention this always as if it were some sort of crime), they can just as well remember IBM’s actions. After all, supporting Murder should be longer remembered than some smudgy business tactics.

    To be short: Even if Microsoft “killed” Netscape, I am sick of freetards spinning this into some sort of barbaric mega-evil act. The corporate world isn’t nice, and if Microsoft’s crimes consist of threatening OEMs and killing other software competitors.. well, they are still tame compared to many other corps.

    The freetards whine as if Bill Gates raped and killed every single child of every Netscape employee.

    Sick of it.

  52. Not a loon says:

    “Gross revenue of M$ ~$60billion. Divide that by the number of employees. That’s a measure of the power of monopoly.”

    But you’re not saying that each of them get paid 6 million dollars?!

  53. Not a loon says:

    Read this about Internet Explorer 4 and Netscape Navigator 4:

    http://penguinday.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/the-ancient-past/

  54. Gross revenue of M$ ~$60billion. Divide that by the number of employees. That’s a measure of the power of monopoly.

  55. This is what the judge wrote in US DOJ v M$:
    “As soon as Netscape released Navigator on December 15, 1994, the product began to enjoy dramatic acceptance by the public; shortly after its release, consumers were already using Navigator far more than any other browser product. This alarmed Microsoft, which feared that Navigator’s enthusiastic reception could embolden Netscape to develop Navigator into an alternative platform for applications development. In late May 1995, Bill Gates, the chairman and CEO of Microsoft, sent a memorandum entitled “The Internet Tidal Wave” to Microsoft’s executives describing Netscape as a “new competitor ‘born’ on the Internet.” He warned his colleagues within Microsoft that Netscape was “pursuing a multi-platform strategy where they move the key API into the client to commoditize the underlying operating system.” By the late spring of 1995, the executives responsible for setting Microsoft’s corporate strategy were deeply concerned that Netscape was moving its business in a direction that could diminish the applications barrier to entry.”

    I used Netscape in those days, too and found it crashed a bit, just like the OS underneath, Lose ’95.

  56. Quoting the judge in US DOJ v M$:
    “In addition to improving the quality of Internet Explorer, Microsoft sought to increase the product’s share of browser usage by giving it away for free. In many cases, Microsoft also gave other firms things of value (at substantial cost to Microsoft) in exchange for their commitment to distribute and promote Internet Explorer, sometimes explicitly at Navigator’s expense. While Microsoft might have bundled Internet Explorer with Windows at no additional charge even absent its determination to preserve the applications barrier to entry, that determination was the main force driving its decision to price the product at zero. Furthermore, Microsoft would not have given Internet Explorer away to IAPs, ISVs, and Apple, nor would it have taken on the high cost of enlisting firms in its campaign to maximize Internet Explorer’s usage share and limit Navigator’s, had it not been focused on protecting the applications barrier.

    Even if Microsoft maximized its ancillary revenue, the amount of revenue realized would not come close to recouping the cost of its campaign to maximize Internet Explorer’s usage share at Navigator’s expense. The countless communications that Microsoft’s executives dispatched to each other about the company’s need to capture browser usage share indicate that the purpose of the effort had little to do with attracting ancillary revenues and everything to do with protecting the applications barrier from the threat posed by Netscape’s Navigator and Sun’s implementation of Java. For example, Microsoft vice president Brad Chase told the company’s assembled sales and marketing executives in April 1996 that they should “worry about your browser share [ ] as much as BillG” even though Internet Explorer was “a no revenue product,” because “we will lose [sic] the Internet platform battle if we do not have a significant user installed base.” He told them that “if you let your customers deploy Netscape Navigator, you will loose [sic] leadership on the desktop.””

    There it is. M$ could have made money selling IE but they gave it away and made exclusive deals to kill Netscape.

  57. The kids were using KDE. Runlevel was 5 IIRC. That was Caldera eDesktop. It was a smooth installation except having to specify monitor frequencies and it ran smoothly.

  58. HP PCs. I forget the model. 100 mbits/s NIC, 72MB RAM, 800 MB HD. These were refurbished PCs with a new OS from the factory.

  59. Not a loon says:

    “My favourite example of this is M$ whose 100K staff earn tens of $billions annually. That’s about $6million each, beyond all reason”

    Are you saying, each of the 100k earn 6 million dollars?

  60. oldman says:

    “Netscape is one that was killed.”

    Netscape was a buggy product that people used only because it was the only game around. Unfortunately for Netscape, the web browser that microsoft came out with was simply better. Instead of making a better product, Netscape continue producing a product that was buggy as crap, with predictable results.

    Pog, I USED Netscape as well as its predecessor. The product just kept getting buggier over time – one was almost forced to go to IE just to get work done.

    The irony is that once netscape died, the sucessor company mozilla gave the code a thorough washing an the resulting web browser, firefox, proceeded to eat IE’s lunch until very recently.

    I can speak from experience over quite a long time that Microsoft is a very aggressive company to deal with. Yet many companies (Like Citrix, Quest, VMWare) succeed in competing with them to this day. But these companies know that they just cant sit back on their laurels an expect their market position to keep them competitive.

  61. I.P.Friely says:

    Yeah, yeah, Microsoft dying, Linux is taking over, blah blah. Meanwhile, in a world where no one compares a successful software company to a dictator relying on tribal divisions to remain in power, people just shake their head at the nutjob making the comparison and go back to what they were doing.

  62. Linturd fighter says:

    “Netscape is one that was killed. They had a product widely used and M$ did illegal things to suppress it: exclusive dealing, buying up stocks and integrating IE with Lose ’95. M$ did not compete. They killed.”

    Wow, another idiot who believes the nostalgic, romanticized version of Netscape’s history rather than the real one. Netscape lost because IE was increasingly getting better and Netscape stagnated. Netscape was for a long time super buggy and their planned entire rewrite was just the final nail in the coffin. Netscape themselves had far more to do with their own death than “M$” did.

  63. Richard Chapman says:

    “Freedom has its drawbacks.” I’m sure the author will strenuously avoid those “drawbacks” and vigorously try to convince others to avoid them too.

  64. lpbbear says:

    “Netscape is one that was killed. They had a product widely used and M$ did illegal things to suppress it: exclusive dealing, buying up stocks and integrating IE with Lose ’95. M$ did not compete. They killed.”

    Despite what our visiting MS shill/trolls say its obvious Microsoft has killed scores of companies over the years. Its a fact. (Get The Facts)

    They can stick their fingers in their ears and say “Neener neener, Microsoft never did any such thing…prove it!” but why bother proving it….again and again and again. Its a fact, if they don’t believe it THEY can go look it up in any number of locations on the Internet. Don’t waste your time pointing out the obvious. If they “Don’t know of any” they are going through life with their fingers in their ears, blinders over their eyes, and letting Waggener/Edstrom control their verbal output.

    According to the MS history revisionists its always “those” companies fault for failing. According to these folks it was bad management, poor quality, “serious flaws”, and other sad excuses to justify Microsoft’s abuse of its monopoly position and tactics. But of course Microsoft ALWAYS came out with a better product according to these folks….of course. We all know that Win 1.0, Win95, MS Office 3.0 through 2007, Internet Explorer etc. were absolute gems in the historical annals of software…cough… quality….cough cough…..don’t we?

    And also of course anyone who bothers wasting their time pointing out to these folks the actual historical facts is labeled immediately an “anti-microsoft bigot”. A strong word to use against people who dislike Microsoft’s unethical business practices.

    From Wikipedia

    “A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders, religion or spirituality and reality creation beliefs. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.”

    As a person who has straddled both sides of the fence for years I find this definition pretty much nails the attitudes of the majority of Pro Microsoft Anti Free Software Linux people I have met through the years…..to a tee. In fact it also defines the actual company and its practices also to a tee.

    Most of us in the Free Software/Linux camps really have little against the actual software Microsoft produces. Honestly, if you want to use it go for it. Not my problem.

    What we do have problems with is having it shoved down our throats in an environment where a single company tries to bastardize standards and act as a controlling monopoly to the exclusion of consumer choice. In this area we look at Microsoft as a corrupting entity bent on destroying any other choice from any other company for consumers. Were Microsoft to stop acting in this manner most of us so called anti-microsoft bigots” would not even care about the company or bother to waste time on it at all. Why would we?

    In simple fact the company has acted as a monopoly for decades and is holding back technology by doing so. This is harming the economy, consumer choice, the environment and ultimately mankind. If there are any real “bigots” in this story it would be those who blindly support the companies illegal actions in the marketplace and those morons who set Microsoft’s corporate direction and policy.

  65. Oombooboo_ says:

    “Netscape is one that was killed. They had a product widely used and M$ did illegal things to suppress it”

    What are you high? Netscape Communications stole the code for their browser from the NCSA and had no business model. They even made this clear when they offered their IPO. The stock market didn’t care. The stock market wanted Disneyland(TM) and thus started the ‘dot com’ era.

    Netscape killed themselves, Microsoft did what Microsoft does which is practice shrewd business tactics – just like your beloved Google.

    Seriously Robert, buy yourself a clue and pick up a real religion – not this basement dwelling freetarded religion. It’s rotting your brain.

  66. Brian Page says:

    OK, my turn to feed the troll…

    two things:
    1) “The notion put forward by some here that a software glitch in a program running on an OS written by Microsoft is just so plain wrong-headed”

    granted, but malware isn’t a ‘glitch’.
    and if the OS is infected with malware and doesn’t have the resources or ability to run the application that performs patient vitals monitoring or oil pressure monitoring, then yes, commercial software is to blame for the loss of lives.
    it’s not wrong-headed at all.

    nice down-play by the way:
    oil rig explodes = glitch
    lol.

    2) “no one who is not an anti-microsoft bigot is going to accept this reasoning, and will most likely dismiss the person promulgating the opinion as not being worth listening to.”
    Right, this is true. That is because people can’t reasoned out of a position that they didn’t reason themselves into.

    nice play up by the way:
    anyone not of your opinion is a bigot.
    also lol.

  67. D-G says:

    “The reason I went to GNU/Linux was Lose ’95. It crashed daily on multiple PCs in my classroom back in 2000. GNU/Linux ran for months without a glitch on the same hardware.”

    Yes, runlevel 1 can do wonders for GNU/Linux. Meanwhile the rest of us gets work done with superior operating systems.

  68. Not a loon says:

    What kind of hardware? I was running 95 in 95 on a 486 without much problems (OK, there were some, but the Linux of the time wasn’t better, I can assure you.

  69. The reason I went to GNU/Linux was Lose ’95. It crashed daily on multiple PCs in my classroom back in 2000. GNU/Linux ran for months without a glitch on the same hardware.

  70. Not a loon says:

    ” Lose ’95″

    LOL, Pogsie. You may dislike it, but to call one of the most successful IT products “lose” is quite a stretch.

  71. Netscape is one that was killed. They had a product widely used and M$ did illegal things to suppress it: exclusive dealing, buying up stocks and integrating IE with Lose ’95. M$ did not compete. They killed.

  72. oldman says:

    “How many businesses has M$ killed? Businesses that sold a good product or service that competed with M$ very well? ”

    Actually, I Don’t know of any Pog. I do know of quite a few business who had a leadership position by virtue of being there first or by virtue of filling in a functional hole in one of the earlier versions of windows. In almost all the cases that I know of the products these companies sold either had serious flaws that microsoft exploited by coming out with a product that was at least better than the product in question, or lost their market when microsoft fixed the functional hole in the next shipping version of windows.

    As far as the other comments are concerned, The notion put forward by some here that a software glitch in a program running on an OS written by Microsoft is just so plain wrong-headed. Suffice it to say that IMHO no one who is not an anti-microsoft bigot is going to accept this reasoning, and will most likely dismiss the person promulgating the opinion as not being worth listening to.

  73. There were many more problems with that system than BSODs. It was an accident waiting to happen. Pure negligence.

  74. oe says:

    Dr. Scheitwietz’s [sic] site presents evidence that Other OS may have been a keypart in the chain of failures for DeepWater Horizon, critical to the breakdown of ambulance and emergency services dispatching in the UK (if I recall correctly) and resulted in lack of situational awareness in air traffic control…the Blue Screen sounds like it could lead to death quite easily.

  75. Dann says:

    Hey oldman!

    How many install of Microsoft are on Hospital and Lab computers?

    How much research is compromised by horrid security measures?

    Actual fact: Ambulances were held up after a windows system crash.
    http://www.techworld.com.au/article/376509/nsw_ambulance_computers_coming_back_online/

    Actual fact: Microsoft systems were on the oil rig that exploded. Caused by a blue screen of death
    http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2010/08/the-blue-screen-of-exploding-oil-rigs/

    Looks like people are dying from priorietary software, oldman.
    Liar.

  76. How many businesses has M$ killed? Businesses that sold a good product or service that competed with M$ very well? M$ does not compete. It kills. No one would object to them achieving or maintaining large share through production of a superior product but that’s not their way. They achieved monopoly any way they could and enslaved the world.

  77. oldman says:

    “No doubt there are situations where central control is beneficial but to claim it is the way things should be when we know Nature revels in diversity as a means of building strong and durable ecosystems is wrong”

    There is one very big difference between real tyranny and the tyranny that you perceive at the hands of microsoft and other commercial software companies.

    People are dying in the mid east fighting for freedom.
    No one is dying from having to use commercial software.

    No one forces you to use commercial software Pog. You are personally free to use linux as much as you want. You are personally free to promote Linux as THE answer for IT.

    And others are equally free to tell you no.

    Freedom has its drawbacks. You can try to persuade others to your viewpoint, but if they say, “thanks but no thanks”, you are free to think what you wish of them, but thats all. I they are a vendor who says “no we do not sell that particular configuration”. Your are free to shop elsewhere.

  78. Richard Chapman says:

    Ever since the Industrial Revolution we’ve had to fight this war of concentration of corporate power over individual rights. It’s never been won, only compromised. The “Information Age” has only given the corporations new ground seize. By the time enough people realized Microsoft was pulling a Standard Oil IT style, it was too late, they had taken most of the new territory and called it their own.

    I know you’re a Maths man Robert, but this is why we study History. So we don’t have to repeat it. I don’t think it’s working though. Either that or not enough people are studying it.

Leave a Reply