What is Digg?47 Comments
- tadelste, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12When Microsoft announced its plans for Open Office XML, it threw the entire industry off center. Under an older concept explained as "Paper Machines and Phantom Computers" used against IBM in the 1970's the announcement of a product introduction far in advance may have caused customers to refrain from using existing products and solutions.
I might argue that Microsoft stopped Openoffice.org and other office suite manufacturers' momentum. It certainly has made people stop and think about whether or not to implement the OpenDocument Format (ODF).
According to testimony in what became known as the Telex trial, in 1970, IBM formed a secret task force to find ways to reverse a trend of IBM mainframe users buying peripherals from other companies with lower prices and better quality.
The task force recommended many startegies including disguising existing models with face-lifts and new model numbers. They also used strategic timing of product announcements to confuse the marketing plans of other companies and keep computer users expecting something new from IBM. IBM allegedly would plan several improvements and new models for a product in advance, then announce them until they regained the sales.
Aside from announcements for products IBM sold, Control Data Corporation (CDC) accused IBM of announcing machines with specifications it could not and never intended to deliver. IBM supposedly did this to delay or cause cancellation of orders from competitors. CDC devoted a full page, entitled "Paper Machines and Phantom Computers," to IBM's strategy in its law suit.
With Microsoft taking between 12 to 18 months to achieve certification from Ecma International, considered one of the more liberal standards bodies, doesn't that beg us to question if a "Paper Machines and Phantom Computers" is in play? Additionally, Ecma will allow Microsoft to retain ownership of the format. Other bodies require organizations submitting standards to give up the property. Where's the oversight?
Should Massachusetts Investigate?
The concurrence of Microsoft offering to open its Office XML format after losing to the OASIS-ISO standard seems odd. With the recent confession of Michael Scanlon to conspiracy to bribe public officials, Massachusetts officials need to look at the relationship of Preston Gates, the BSA and Microsoft.
The confession of Scanlon, a partner with former Preston Gates lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an aide to Tom DeLay should raise a yellow flag for elected officials in Massachusetts. The events of today and those involving Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff and Scanlon indicate a direct link might exist amongst political officials who have possibly conspired against the Open Document Standard.
Massachusetts officials should also look at the actual standard itself. - simplisticton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The article is well-written and although it's an opinion piece, his opinions are backed up by the relevant facts. Contrast this to what qualifies as "reporting" in most circles, which is just the uncritical regurgitation of press releases. It doesn't hurt that I totally agree with the author.
- tuxchick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4if your kids are allowed to grow up in a world not conquered by corporate interests.
- blackfrancis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3thenick,
So what if it's an opinion article? At least he backs his views with facts about Microsoft's past behavior concerning Open Standards. - chrono13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The nice thing about standards is that there's so many to choose from!
(recycled from elranzer's post regarding the Open Document format) - SolariPicasso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think Atlas Shrugged should be required reading for anyone who lives in America, and for people in the software industry, The Fountainhead. Though the Fountainhead is about an architect, it should speak to anyone who designs software, or systems. Another great thought to keep in mind, "There's no such thing as a free lunch." -- popularized by economist Milton Friedman. The socialistic tendencies of the Open source movement is without a doubt the greatest threat to software in general.
- tadelste, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'd have to say: This is great journalism. My kids would love it.
- tuxchick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Do we have 30 brands of operating systems to choose from? No way. How manu do you see on retail store shelves, and from major vendors like Dell, Gateway, or Compaq?
Do we have 30 brands of PCs to choose from? No, thanks to MS we're saddle with i86 as the dominant platform. A perfect match- the crappiest OS with the crappiest hardware architecture.
Now they've expanded their operations to the political arena, with gabage like DRM, and tacit support of all the abuses by the RIAA and the movie industry, and turning what should have been a straightfoward administrative decision in Massachusetts over ODF into a huge political brawl that threatens to re-organize a good chunk of the state government. They sunk lower than I ever thought they could when they conned disability advocates into opposing ODF- of all the cynical, heartless deeds they've done that ranks as the absolute worst.
Microsoft commits a special kind of evil, like the oil companies, and the robber barons of the olden days. They don't compete, and the only thing they innovate is bullying tactics. It's not enough to say quit whining and buy something else- that's just like saying "I love being a victim."
I sure don't understand people who make excuses for abuses perpetrated by big companies. Why do you do this? Why does it make you so uncomfortable when people speak out against them? - neurokaotix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"What happened to that?"
Lobbying - rileyjt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Horrible Article.
Concerning the topic though - of course MS is not going to completely open their standards up. They will still maintain control over what goes into them and can change them at any time. But they are going to publish them and allow everyone else to use them if they want. - artemoff, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1open microsoft is impossible http://neverindex.com/
- J_Omega, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ depakote: "Open Source people should spend less time talking and more time trying to work on their software."
OR they should TALK ABOUT IT in order to try and promote it. Not everyone is a coder.
@ prophasi: "the great thing about corporate interests is that they compete."
MS is a convicted monopoly - ie. they stimied competition, ended it, due to their interests. - stormlrd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Just keep in mind how they became a monopoly. I'll give you a hint: It's not because they sucked and everyone else rocked."
I'll give you the answer. It's not because they had a windowed environment, because they didn't it was DOS. It's not because they had the most superior system out there at the time (check the amiga out sometime). It is simply because they had the marketing bullsh*t down pat. as they have time and time again, fooled every stupid one of you blinker boys with marketing hype. Dare I even mention an example of this hoodwinking.. that being the MTV Showcase of the xbox360 with elija, where they showed a timeline of all the game consoles there ever was.. except there was no mention of the playstation at all. Why would they do that I ponder? When you slow down the shots you can actually see a playstation spinning off to the right hand side. as if to say.. we're not even going to be honest and say you even existed because we're the only thing that the market can sustain.. what ever happened to healthy competition. This brutal disembowling of the marketplace is sickening. There is no market place with a monopoly, thats why they have anti-monoploy laws, but with all the lawyers MS have they tend to be able to twist the laws into something else by lobbying.. omg we're in the dark ages again. all the peons are too stupid to realise they're being screwed by the rich guys and the rich guys are laughing all the way to the bank. Tell me MS fans, what would the world be like if there was only microsoft everywhere on everything and nothing else could exist? Ever heard of the cascading system failure? :) I look forward to that day. I have my baked beans for just that occasion. - Philip_McClure, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"microsoft never claimed to be open source, and they never will be. theres no reason for them to write software that they have no property rights over. linux fanboys need to get over themselves and realize/accept that microsoft is never going to hand out freebies, so stop complaining,kthx"
Who cares if Microsoft is never open source. I don't care if Microsoft ever opens their formats. What I _am_ concerned about is the amount of money our spend-happy government spends on software that locks public data into a proprietary format that will require government-wide system upgrades whenever the next version of Office comes out.
The US Government spends tax-payers dollars like there's no tomorrow. If F/OSS software will get the job done, I think the government is _obligated_ to use it instead of Microsoft products.
Isn't that the way government procurement works? Write up a requirement sheet, take bids and the vendor that can meet the requirements at the lowest cost wins? What happened to that? - cober, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A recurring theme of your side of the argument is, distilled, "But that would take work! Or research! Or something!"
Apparently your research is based on links to 404 pages.
"Oh yeah, and thanks for pointing me to that press release from the government, the Sovereign Possessor of Truth."
You are certainly in denial about Microsoft's monopoly position. How about a judge's ruling: http://news.com.com/2100-1001-238758.html
Please, I am waiting to hear your rhetoric about how unfair the court system is to big business. - Prophasi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A recurring theme of your side of the argument is, distilled, "But that would take work! Or research! Or something!" In the past, when I was more aggressive about upgrading my PC, I didn't know 3/4 of the places I ordered from; they all came from Pricewatch.com. The only type of person I've ever heard say "x86 is too limiting!" or "Windows won't let me recompile the kernel!" are the types who actively have a problem with Windows and want to change; coincidentally, they're the types who can -- and will -- search in Pricewatch, Froogle, Pricegrabber, etc. to find what they want. Those types of people aren't confused and scared when what they want isn't shrinkwrapped on the shelf next to Windows XP. NTM the fact that most non-Win, non-Mac users, I'd wager, build their machines (or wipe Win from an existing one) and install their OS from downloaded images.
"That is exactly my point - without any competition, they can continue to charge whatever they want."
They can charge whatever they want WITH competition. They obviously have the competition of Linux, BSD, and OSX, and yet you contend that they still set their prices with reckless abandon, so clearly competition isn't a guarantee that you're going to like the price. Regardless of competition, they'll set the price where they have to set it to make a profit based on the operational input costs. It all depends on whether they want to make a direct profit on each copy sold, or depend on other software that many Win users will go on to buy (e.g. Office), or rely on service contracts (hence RedHat's early success).
Regarding CPUs, the Wikipedia entry for CPU design indicates that a high-end CPU would take about $100M: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_design
OTOH, this link indicates that Microsoft spent $250M to develop XP -- quite an increase: http://www.eprairie.com/news/viewnews.asp?newsletterID=3088&page=1
I'd also wager that MS spends way more money than Intel in marketing, cross-promotion, hotfixes and service packs, further internationalization, and so forth. Moreover, Intel and AMD generally go several macro product cycles before having to a complete (or near) redesign, which is almost certainly what that $100M figure represents; the incremental updates probably cost a good bit less. Windows XP, however, was also largely incremental from Win2K, but yet it cost $250M; I'm sure Vista will be even higher. This link shows that MS invested another $100M in the ISV community alone: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/sep05/09-13ISVSupportVistaPR.mspx.
Regardless, in our $400 PC, unless Intel is choosing to lose money on each unit, it CAN'T be that expensive, given all the other components, unless my estimate of $100 for Windows is indeed too generous. We could then decrease it to allow for your generous estimate of the cost of the CPU, but then MS will be inflicting less "tax," thereby decreasing your cause for complaints. Ars says here that MS nets $9 (average, probably) per copy of WinXP: http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2005/11/14/1832. That's not so astronomical. But then, it makes mathematical sense based on that $400 PC, and all the other cheap ones that Dell offers.
Oh yeah, and thanks for pointing me to that press release from the government, the Sovereign Possessor of Truth. You really must be a statist shill to suppose that that lends any credence to your position. You liking that patriot act? How about the banning of gay marriage? The allowance of gay marriage? The eminent domain ruling in Kelo? Jim Crow laws forcing blacks to the back of the bus?
Oh, my bad. Government would never distort the truth to pander to the voters or to powerful lobbying groups (and yeah, when an army of MS-competitors group together, they're more powerful lobbyists than even MS). Given their sterling record of the pursuit of justice and truth, let's give them more support over the market!
If you ever spend more of your time worrying about corporate price gouging than government price gouging, you're quite insane. - Prophasi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@tuxchick, the great thing about corporate interests is that they compete. The world so far, to the extent that it has been "conquered" by corporate interests, has cured scores of diseases, made most of the others livable for years or decades, provided nearly absolute employment, shelter, food, and clothing (and transportation...entertainment...mobility...choice...and general comfort) in those countries that have embraced it (e.g. the US).
The extent to which you believe your life, or mine, to truly be "conquered" by corporate interests is the extent to which you misuse the word. You like Linux? Fine -- use it. OO.o? Use it. BSD? OSX? Solaris? No problem. Choose from among 30 different brands of cars, or alternately among a dozen brands of motorcycles. (And that's just the mass-produced stuff.) Or choose a scooter, or a bike, or mass transit. Same with food....or grow your own. Same with clothing...or make your own. Moan about how it's too hard to sew your own clothes, but it's due to corporations that you have a choice.
The MS (or is it M$?)-bashing has been old for a while. They're a company; they exist to make profit. They do not -- and should not -- try to make the world a better place directly; that occurs systemically through competitive innovation. Sure, MS sucks at some stuff, in some ways; everyone does, and NO ONE is exempt from that, OSS or not. Skip the stuff they make for which the price + suckage outweighs the benefits, and buy any for which the opposite is true. If MS lies about their openness, and that's something you were depending on, screw them, make your point, spend your money elsewhere.
But that's not a flaw of capitalism and corporations -- that's the point of it all. - Prophasi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Cober: http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=3356850
http://www.amberpcusa.com/smoreinfo.asp?iid=1315&cid=219
http://www.abmx.com/desktop-computer-wintel-24ghz-512gb-ram-80gb-ide-cdrom-cold-grey-p-186.html
http://www.3btech.net/3btech/pe4cosywfrli.html
You're right -- that was tough. You could also probably find a dozen local shops in any decent-sized city, and at least a couple in most small towns, that'll sell you a rig with nothing, Windows, or a number of Linux distros, if you just ask. Or, as I said before, find and pay someone to build such a system for you. Not hard.
As for the licensing agreements, how much do you think you're paying for Windows on that $399 PC (with monitor!)? Sounds like they must be GOUGING us. It's hard to beat that price by assembling the machine -- WITHOUT ANY OS -- if you even can. So what share of that do you suppose is for Windows -- $50? $75? $100? Not bad, considering: Nero costs $80; Acrobat 7 costs $450; UEStudio (www.ultraedit.com) costs $100; Norton SystemWorks is $100; Acronis TrueImage is $50; and so on.
Not bad at all by comparison of _virtually the entire rest of the software market that you will see_, considering that Windows is an expansive piece of software that manages the entire system and requires several *man-years* to produce. So tell me, in terms of complexity, time spent, mission criticality of the program, what you can do with it out of the box, etc., please do show us all the commercial software out there that puts Windows to shame at a rather liberal estimate of $100 out of that $400 PC.
Also, I hope you're not serious in comparing PC hardware advances with Windows. I mean...you do, like, realize...that PC hardware is produced by MACHINES, right? An assembly line of automated machines that have themselves become cheaper and more efficient? Do you actually think that there's no difference between that and software that has to be manually written by thousands of human programmers who have only gotten more *costly* as time has gone on?
Go here for your facts: http://www.answers.com/topic/monopoly-1. Note the word "exclusive." Try looking up a word next time, before you try applying it to a subject. Thanks for your enlightened attempt at "facts," though.
It's also quite funny and amazingly coincidental how the path to justice that many of you subscribe would just happen to give you cheaper computers and software from companies whose products you in reality have no claim on whatsoever. I can't FATHOM why you would possibly take up a position that would allow you to legislate your way to cheaper stuff. OTOH, I'd also love a $45 copy of Windows Vista; you think I want to pay $300-400 off the shelf? I don't -- but nevertheless, I recognize Microsoft's right to charge whatever they want for the stuff that they spent the time and money creating. Hey, there's another word for you to look up: "objectivity." - cober, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow - I'm so stupid! EVERYONE has heard of 3B Tech! How could I have forgotten them! And AmberPC! Of course!
"but nevertheless, I recognize Microsoft's right to charge whatever they want for the stuff that they spent the time and money creating."
That is exactly my point - without any competition, they can continue to charge whatever they want. I'm glad we got to that understanding.
AND, as for the cost of hardware - where you say "PC hardware is produced by MACHINES, right? " Well, how do you think the machines make the chips? Do you know anything at all about how the chips are made? Or how the chips are designed? I can assure, it is quite alot of work. And, everytime a new chip (assuming a decent complexity digital device) is designed, thousands of hours of development and debug are required. It is not simply press a button and the machines start making the next generation chip.
And thank you for your elementary report on the usage of the word monopoly. I hope you don't get too busy to tell these guys what monopoly means:http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/1998/1764.htm - Prophasi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Umm...you've already played the card where you refer to government rulings. It's tapped out. Monopoly's an economic principle; I posted above the link to the economic definition of the word "monopoly." Have you found a way that it applies to MS that no one else knows, or is it just that you, in your vast wisdom, disagree with economists on what it means? Or maybe you think government rulings are more important than, you know, reality. Whatever.
The courts aren't by-and-large more unfair to big business any more than to anyone else. Judges are often inept and biased, just like other people. In cases where courts decided against "big business," sometimes it was a good judgment; other times, it was due to lobbying from OTHER "big business." I mean, you do know that big business isn't like this one big conglomeration of firms that are all in agreement on their ideas of crushing the "little guy" or some nonsense, right?
We can trade links all day long: http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/06/court_upholds_p.html.
Do you agree with that Kelo decision? If not, then you can forget about citing references to rulings to support your weak arguments.
The world's not as simple as you seem to want it to be: X is evil, Y is a hero. MS makes some good, some okay, and some sucky software. Sometimes it won't pay off to use it; sometimes it will. But no matter what, if they spend billions of dollars developing something, it's up to them if they want to sell it to you, and if you want to buy it, you have to agree to their terms. You don't agree, don't buy it. That's hardly tyrannical.
A monopoly means NO OTHER OPTIONS. You would have NO ALTERNATIVES. How is it that you can't understand that simple principle? If there are alternatives, even if they're less good, then it can't be a monopoly, by definition, and regardless of any court decisions. In fact, the alternatives being less good is precisely what gives MS a 90% market share. This surprises you? - 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Thanks, tadelste.
- cober, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What I find most interesting is the fact that the prices of hardware has dropped - only 5 years ago, the sub $1000 pc was an economic marvel. Now, we hav systems that cost less than $300. Yet, the price of the OS has not changed at all. The price of Office hasn't changed either...
Please, try to buy a PC (not a Mac) without MS preinstalled. The company BeOs was willing to GIVE away their OS to be preinstalled with windows, but the MS licensing agreements prohibited it.
MS is monopoly. That is a fact. In addition, they use illegal methods to maintain and expand their monopoly. The result is that the consumer pays more - so instead of their being $250 pcs, their are $300 pcs due to the MS tax. - J_Omega, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ Prophasi: "Every time you buy a system, an OS, or an office suite, or use a browser, you have plenty of choice, as in all other things."
In regards to the OS, that's patently untrue. There is a derth of options, not plenty of choices so far as Joe Sixpack is concerned. Buy a system comes down to (basically) one of three architechtures, and Joe isn't buying a Sparc, so he's left deciding between an x86 and an Apple (soon to be x86.) Buying the Apple gives him OSX, with no real options that he'll see as an alternative. Similarly, if Joe buys an x86 PC (from plenty of different vendors) there's really only one OS option he'll be aware of - Windows.
Sure, for the minority tech-savy crowd, there ARE options, but there really is none for the average consumer.
Agreed that the definition is economic - however it is up to the courts to regulate. Agreed, they might not be a TRUE monopoly (only one supply) but they are certainly guilty of monopolistic practices. Recall Standard Oil. It had something like 66% of the market share with around 100 other petroleum refiner competitors. It was found to be using monopolistic practices, and the govt. was forced to break them up so that they wouldn't eventually become a true monopoly.
MS certainly has more than a 66% market share, and uses similar tactics.
To think that MS isn't (close enough to being) a monopoly is either decieving yourself or outright lying. It doesn't matter if they really do make the best product, or it is your educated opinion to be the best, or even if it is your favorite for no real reason. - Prophasi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@J Omega: Even if the court HAD convicted them of just "being a monopoly," rather than specific anti-competitive practices related to the browser-OS bundling and others, do you think that would make it so?
The definition of monopoly is economic -- it's not for the courts to decide. And economically speaking, Microsoft has NO monopoly, in any field it's in, and never has. Even if MS had 100% of the market share, the mere presence of other products on the shelves and online means that it simply doesn't have a monopoly. 100% market share (meaning every single user uses MS software rather than anyone else's) is necessary for a monopoly, but it's not sufficient.
At the time MS lost its court case on the browser issue, there were several other browsers already on the scene; the issue was bundling IE with Windows, not pwning the market. Every time you buy a system, an OS, or an office suite, or use a browser, you have plenty of choice, as in all other things.
It seems that these days, "monopoly" means "a company that behaves like Microsoft" to so many people that it's almost a truism -- evident by the fact virtually everyone who accuses them of it sees fit to point out that they're *convicted* as a monopoly. Gotta be true, right? Give it up. The only way MS violates the market is when they get legislators to favor them or their interests over someone else -- in which case, as I said before, the problem is ultimately government, not Microsoft. - Prophasi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@J_Omega: Joe Sixpack doesn't care about architecture or OS. Joe wants to type some stuff, print some stuff, send email, store some photos, browse the web, listen to music, and chat with friends. To do that, he can go to Wal-Mart, Best Buy, CompUSA, Fry's, Costco, Sam's, Apple, or 50 others. He can choose to buy a PDA, desktop, laptop, or tablet from HP, Toshiba, Sony, Fujitsu, Gateway, eMachines, Acer, or more. Then there are the thousands of online stores, including Newegg and Dell.
Joe can buy a machine from Wal-Mart or Dell, including monitor, for under $400. Or without monitor, for about $200. He can get machines running Windows, Linspire, OSX, BSD, or plenty of other Linux distros. Or, he can get it without an OS and pick up a shrink-wrapped box of RedHat, Mandrake, Windows, SuSE/Novell, or Linspire. Soon you may be able to add OSX to that. Or, he could simply go to a local shop, or pay a kid he knows, to buy the components, put it together, and install the OS, including free downloadable ones. You're right, this sounds like a problem that has to be remedied immediately! I can't tell you how many grocery store clerks I meet who tell me they just feel constrained by x86 dependency.
You say there's not enough variety; what IS enough variety? What are you waiting for? Getting a complete system with OS for under $400 signals to you that something is lacking? You say MS has an abusive monopoly, but abusive monopolies result in the twin threats of low quality and high prices; but Dell's prices dispute the price point. As to quality, sure they have probs -- every OS does. It's, of course, amazingly complex. Yet I sit here and code day in, day out, and never does my XP box crash, bog, freak out, or otherwise screw up. I can do everything I need to do on my system, and I could do it for under $800. Most people's needs are FAR below mine, and they'll be happy with Linspire.
And you know why those other tech-savvy options aren't "available" (in your face) for the average consumer? Because the average consumer doesn't need them. The average consumer isn't fleeing from the most obvious choice, because there's not a problem with it. The people for whom $400 is too much either pirate or use Linux. The people for whom MS is too buggy use Linux or OSX. The vast majority have voted with their wallets that Windows is, well, fine.
Again, all you're saying is that this is a world of trade-offs. Even in capitalism, we haven't created Eden. The point of capitalism is that it most efficiently allocates all efforts and productivity than any alternative. Pointing out minor, specialized qualms says nothing about how much worse those qualms would be if things were changed.
Don't proclaim a catastrophe where there isn't one. - oldcyborg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0All I know, is that Microsoft will skewer Open Systems in ANY way they can.
It isn't innovation that got Microsoft where it is. It is Marketing and strong arm muscle. They will mow you down if you try to get onto the field.
I have to admit it though... I think they are running scared. So, be careful what you put into the web. Just word it correctly, thats all....
Good Luck to all of us......
Cyborg - Prophasi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Frankly, yeah, you probably do have that many to choose from, given all the different versions of Windows, different Linux distros, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Unix flavors, OS/2, OSX, all the old MacOS versions, and then all those one-offs that you see in a trawl through a site like osnews.com. Ah, but then you might say, "But...but...but...OS/2 or MacOS 7?? Those are hella old, not even a consideration!" You can play simple games, type reports, do calculations, browse the web, and probably even figure out how to print stuff. Compared to your options if no corporation had formed to create an OS to make a profit due to "greed," Win 3.1 is rich indeed. It doesn't need to be on a retail shelf to use it. Maybe try...trying? It sounds like your one solid complaint about capitalism is that it's not utopia.
Anyone who can truly cry in outrage over a $399 Dell computer with monitor ...because it's based on i86 (!!)...can be labeled nothing better than an ideologue, and has demonstrated how far out of touch with the concerns of regular people you can be if you really try.
Even if there aren't 30 choices, since when was that set as a barometer of fairness? Do you propose that the field will explode in a limitless variety of options WITHOUT free competition? Maybe we could have the government *prescribe* what a proper OS should do. Or we could decide by a huge committee -- now THAT would foster innovation and variety.
DRM, RIAA, patent law, tort law, gov't contracts -- those are all problems of government, not of companies. If the government allows such laws to be passed, it's natural and expected that companies will lobby for it. Don't want them to occur? Take away the government's right to grant such things -- don't leave that power there and expect companies not to try to use it to their benefit. That's naive beyond belief, and contrary to the nature of human experience. (Not that those things ARE problems -- DRM just means you don't get to have everything the way you want it, so you whine. Don't like it? Don't buy it. You didn't do any work to create the music, so your right to listen to it is contingent on the terms of the person selling it to you.)
And -- haha -- the oil companies. The fraud that's being perpetuated against the oil companies is in the name of populist votes and emotional reaction. The oil company profits per gallon are less than the government tax per gallon. The oil companies' profit margin is lower than Coke's, than the pharma companies, and -- in fact -- lower than the US average in general. But yet they're "gouging."
Compare history before corporations to now. Establish a workable theoretical framework that could possibly rival capitalism in empowering and enriching people. Subsume your emotion to logic, learn economics, and learn history. OR...here's an idea...go live in a country that's chosen to reject capitalism altogether; the results are nothing short of breathtaking (have fun!). - lickmygiggle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1*wonders how long it will take for someone to bring up Sony*
- jinxie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0microsoft never claimed to be open source, and they never will be. theres no reason for them to write software that they have no property rights over. linux fanboys need to get over themselves and realize/accept that microsoft is never going to hand out freebies, so stop complaining,kthx
- helios, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0looks like the offending post may have been pulled...my thanks and apologies.
helios - neurokaotix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0No matter what Microsoft does you'll hate it. If they came out with Microsoft Linux you'd find something, anything that might be flawed and bash them for it. Just be happy the company is moving more towards standards in general, even if they are their own standards and you yourself cannot make money off of it.
- cecil_t, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@helios - the posts are still there, but you have to change your "Comment View Threshold" at the top of the page to -3 to see them. If enough people rate a comment up or down it will retain those ratings for everybody, so if you see a profane or useless comment you can help clean up digg by rating it down.
- SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Microsoft is full of bastard coated bastards with bastard fillings
- neurokaotix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"MS is a convicted monopoly - ie. they stimied competition, ended it, due to their interests."
Just keep in mind how they became a monopoly. I'll give you a hint: It's not because they sucked and everyone else rocked. - helios, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Dude, we have Jr. High school students who read this forum as part of their homework assignments. Could the crude language please be exchanged via private email?
helios - b04155, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Can't we just have a dirty bomb attack in Redmond.. I mean, come on already.
- the sad thing is the amount of people that'd believe this - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Great. More open source propaganda.
Open Source people should spend less time talking and more time trying to work on their software. - TheNik, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Firstly. That's an OPINION article. ***** that guy.
Secondly. That "journalist" writes like a ***** 1st grader. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0
Digg is like RIAA, it must be destroyed. Kevin Rose is Satan. - mr804, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0a whole lot
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0
Digg is like RIAA, it must be destroyed. Kevin Rose is Satan. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0
Digg is like RIAA, it must be destroyed. Kevin Rose is Satan. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0sux
. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0
tadelste is Bill Gates' ass buddy.
. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0
tadelste is Bill Gates' ass buddy.
. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0
Digg is like RIAA, and must be destroyed. Kevin Rose is satan.
. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0
tadelste is Bill Gates' ass buddy.
.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is