| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Circumventing Microsoft | |
|
||
| Time: 00:44 EST/05:44 GMT | News Source: Linux World | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
Notwithstanding the fact it will be many years before very many corporate users might be able to work in a "Microsoft-free" environment, there appears to be significant effort being put forth to make it a reality. From the geekiest tech pubs, like the Java Developer's Journal to august ones such as The Wall Street Journal, circumventing Microsoft is a hot topic. I choose "circumvention" deliberately, as many of the strategies intend not so much to eliminate Microsoft from the equation but to limit our dependence on Microsoft and limit the payments users make to same. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 227 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:05:38 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 6859 (206.156.242.39) at 3/18/2005 10:08:38 AM |
|
csmac3144, you are 100% on the money there.
|
| #2 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 3/18/2005 10:34:18 AM |
|
Do all Fortune 25 decision makers make up their minds based on articles such as this one? I sure hope not.
"Open Source people: grow the hell up." Nice way of generalizing. You must be a bigger bigwig than you made yourself out to be. Why don't you get paid to give your excellent advice to IBM, Novell, Sun, Redhat, etc? Those companies could learn a lot from a Fortune 25 decision maker like you. I wonder what your advice of "grow up" will be worth to them. |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 3/18/2005 10:54:35 AM |
| #1: Yes, I'm sure most "corporate decision makers" surf ActiveWin all day, posting MS-friendly propaganda. I love it when you make generally ridiculous statements such as "Any corporate IT person that tried to push Open Source as it currently stands would be fired for incompetence", in the face of the daily stories of major corporations using or contributing to Open Source. You have zero credibility, and it's plain for all to see. |
| #4 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 3/18/2005 11:02:21 AM |
|
#3, OK, you want specifics, here we go: IBM has been selling billions in assets over the last several years, the latest of which is selling off and getting out of the desktop computer business - a business they helped establish. Meanwhile, Novell, Sun, and Red Hat have managed to lose billions of dollars in shareholder value in their goofy schemes. Novell is still trying to sell their directory services NOS that has fallen out of favor years ago. Sun is becoming a commodity x86 server seller; no longer able to sell their over priced UNIX boxes. While Red Hat tries to sell something that is free for a fee.
Advice on "growing up" may be just what's in order for the above! lol |
| #5 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 3/18/2005 11:48:52 AM |
|
"Advice on "growing up" may be just what's in order for the above! lol"
I think you misunderstood. I AGREE that open source people need to grow up. But they don't need to grow up any more than anyone else does. Examples such as you gave above could be cited for ANY company not just the ones I listed. So youre right advice on "growing up" IS in order for the above, but not exclusively. The advice is applicable toany company including Microsoft. And thats why the advice is worthless. Its like calling water wet. |
| #6 By 19992 (164.214.4.31) at 3/18/2005 12:35:09 PM |
|
Well I am a corporate decision maker for one of the Fortune 25. I guarantee you that propaganda like this makes me infinitely less likely to recommened a major shift toward open source.
It's nice to know that your Fortune 25 company decides on what tech to invest in based on an article written by an idiot. I hope your superiors don't know that you make these decisions based on such idiotic criteria. |
| #7 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at 3/18/2005 12:37:33 PM |
|
With record revenues, record profits and record sales of it's server and os line of software and now it's first ever home business profits, Microsoft is not only saturating the market more and more, they are getting better at doing so. This post was edited by AWBrian on Friday, March 18, 2005 at 12:38. |
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 3/18/2005 1:13:44 PM |
| #9: Yep, it's amazing what you can do when you have a virtual monopoly that is actively supported by the richest and most influential world governments, no matter how you illegally abuse your position. |
| #9 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at 3/18/2005 1:15:31 PM |
|
Nothing wrong with a monopoly and nothing illegal about having a monopoly. At least not in the U.S.
Enjoy yourself. |
| #10 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 3/18/2005 1:39:42 PM |
|
#1 Dead on!
#11, Entirely true and in fact, the US Govt. has often endorsed and or created legal monopolies that is provides strict oversight for - the NSF itself endorsed the Internic when all of this "Internet Stuff" was in part, released for commercial exploitation - I know, I was one among many, who voted for it. There are and will be others and they are not all bad and they all evolve - just as other "Registrars" evolved as planned for. Ya'll remember doing DNS updates via highly formatted text messages to the Internic? Surely you must? I mean, it was our technology - precious few tax dollars supported it as a percentage of GAO budget...it was ours to decide what to do with, when and how...what part of that history do people not get? MS, if it were viewed as a source of anything bad, would have been subjected to a different resolution. Not that legal standards established around Standard Oil nearly a hundred years ago applied in the first place...e.g., different type of monopoly. So ironic...we didn't ask for this...position...it was thrust upon us...the US and many of its companies. Gawd, just do something with more value and greater appeal...I mean dern...we flocked to the VW Beatle, love Japanese electronics and certainly, all things different...cut us some slack, or simply let us the heck alone as we wanted all along. I mean, picking these fights all the time...in business, polictics, etc... what do you expect a people that love to hunt to do...sit around and lap up another indefinately? Sooner or later we get fed up and compete - whether it's in the markets, or elsewhere. I think what you hate some much is our tendancy to win when motivated or provoked. Our small, but vocal group of apologists tend to run along the lines of those that either fear competion, or those that have failed, repeatedly. I mean after all, isn't all of this "life stuff" just one protracted kick in the private parts after another? Kind of makes it worth winning...don't you think...to avoid a shot or two now and then....? |
| #11 By 13797 (206.194.127.111) at 3/18/2005 1:41:48 PM |
|
A monopoly, legally speaking, does not have to own 100% of a given market. IBM was under a consent decree imposed because of monopolist practices from 1956 until 1996, and AT&T was broken up over their monopolist practices in the early 80s (an issue which may end up getting revisited as the number of Baby Bells dwindles back towards that magic number of One). Neither owned an absolute 100% hold on their markets, but they had enough to exert monopolist influence.
The courts did find that Microsoft was a monopoly, because they control so much of the desktop OS market (~95% at the time) that they had monopoly powers. If Microsoft wanted to charge $500 for their OS, no one could really do much about it. However, the courts also found the Microsoft had abused their monopoly position (on several occasions), and sanctioned them for it. This is why they have to undergo continuous review of their operations to ensure that they are not abusing their power. |
| #12 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 3/18/2005 2:05:25 PM |
|
#15, "A" judge, in "a" court found MS to be a monopoly - he applied a legal standard that simply did not and does not apply.
I've spent too much time in litigation support cases [on the defense side] to not recognize that so much of any case is about boutique trial lawyers after someone else's hard earned cash and judges, who sadly, have precious little understanding of any technology. http://www.e-fiducia.com "Technology in the courtroom" The entire case against MS was sick - when examined by even lay persons [which I surely am]. Many agree that "a" court "wanted" to find MS an illegal monopoly - regardless of what the law or evidence supported. I have seen this so often...."Yeah, they are not liable...however, they are rich and deserve to pay..." I've seen many a good lawyer and many a great expert witness get out of the legal business over such nulifications. In the MS case, a good judge would have recused him/herself unless fully qualified to try the case. Judge Jackson never even used a PC - how could he have been qualified to maintain the legal record? I just can't agree with it. |
| #13 By 13797 (206.194.127.111) at 3/18/2005 2:09:25 PM |
|
Do you not recall Microsoft's first sanction for monopolist practices? They required computer manufacturers to buy a Microsoft OS license for each and every system they shipped, regardless of whether it used an OS from Microsoft, IBM, or anyone else. This was a dictated aspect of the contract. Failure to accept this agreement meant that Microsoft would not provide licenses to the OEM, costing them much of their revenue, and possibly forcing them out of business. Those that did accept were forced to charge higher prices for computers that shipped with non-Microsoft OSes, which meant that purchasers favored Microsoft-run systems over others, ensuring Microsoft's dominance.
The reason that Microsoft has not been able to engage in IBM/AT&T-style ploys is because the government got better at recognizing them and dealing with them early, before they could do as much damage. |
| #14 By 13797 (206.194.127.111) at 3/18/2005 2:15:55 PM |
|
#17:
Judge Kollar-Kotelly also found Microsoft had abused its monopolist position, and approved the antitrust settlement between the states and DoJ on one side and Microsoft on the other. Last month, she found Microsoft had complied with the terms of the agreement, but also mentioned that she believed it would be some time before there were any serious gains in marketshare by Microsoft rivals. The DoJ attorneys present stated that there had been "no demonstrable change" in the market positions of the various members of the industry. |
| #15 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 3/18/2005 2:48:55 PM |
| The revisionist history as remembered by the Apologist crowd here is funny. MS is not a monopoly they insist. That's news to the rest of us who are aware that they were convicted of abusing their MONOPOLY, both here and in Europe. But they'll ignore that because they're MS Apologists. Then they'll throw out the herring about monopolies not being illegal, even though the issue is not the monopoly per se, but the abuse thereof. Then when you finally nail them down, they shift into "MS should be allowed to do whatever it pleases" mode, sort of like Mr. Burns' court argument in the Simpsons when he ran over Bart. Too funny. |
| #16 By 135 (24.163.245.167) at 3/18/2005 3:02:41 PM |
| It should be noted, that Microsoft is a monopoly because of consumer choice. That's the problem with computers... it's mostly better for the consumer if everybody uses the same thing. |
| #17 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 3/18/2005 4:42:22 PM |
| #24: if I choose to not deal with a particular company because of their very questionable ethics, I don't consider that silly. Bear in mind that I still use MS products on a daily basis. I simply disagree with their business tactics and show my displeasure by not sending them any money if I can help it. |
| #18 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 3/18/2005 8:18:05 PM |
|
"Besides, didn't the us goverment dump ms office for OO.org recently? "
No. |
| #19 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 3/21/2005 1:21:45 PM |
| wb hal |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 227 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:05:38 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
