Squealing didn't work - let's try bullying.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| salparadise Oct 25, 2005 9:55 PM EDT |
Go to a few politicians all cast down and worried.
Say to the politicians; "American jobs, American way of life, fair market for Microsoft (I can scarcely believe the nerve) - look, evil Open Source, nasty foreign terrorists, American jobs, votes". Stand back and watch the fireworks. Surely, to engage the help of politicians to rig the market for you is a tacit admission your product cannot stand on it's own two feet. |
| tadelste Oct 25, 2005 10:00 PM EDT |
You might recall that we actually learned the art of political monopoly from the British East India Company. For Americans, BEIC wrote the book for three hundred years, I believe. Is that right old boy? ;-) |
| salparadise Oct 25, 2005 10:09 PM EDT |
Highly likely. I'd have most of the British Parliament shot on sight too. We have a group called the CBI (Chartered Business Institute (I think)). Unelected busybodies is what they are. Guaranteed to come out with some statement about the uselessness of the opposition just before an election. Or to come out against national minimum wage just before the vote on it. Unwelcome, unwanted, too powerful. Interested only in business being left to do whatever it wants, when and where it wants. Dress it all up as "in the national interest". Ugh! |
| ubuntu4all Oct 25, 2005 10:17 PM EDT |
type in the word "failure" in google.com search ...and guess who is on top of both searchbuttons (Google Search and I'm Feeling Lucky) ..... go ahead...try it.... ;-) http://www.google.com/ |
| salparadise Oct 25, 2005 10:53 PM EDT |
That's really funny. And a bit scary as well. Political commentary by a search engine? Is that acceptable? |
| mvermeer Oct 26, 2005 1:22 AM EDT |
The search is "misarable failure" and now it brings up also Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore as second and third places. It's called google-bombing. Some people with an adolescent sense of humor have been working hard... |
| ubuntu4all Oct 26, 2005 2:56 AM EDT |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miserable_failure |
| helios Oct 26, 2005 6:39 AM EDT |
"Generally, the two Democrats argue that the OpenDocument approach will unfairly block Microsoft from much of the state’s electronic documents business." How is this any different than the tactics employed by MS to gut their competition in the past few years? At least Mass did it out in the open and the whole deal had a respectable amount of transparency. Besides, I have seen pictures of both these politicians...how in the hell did they manage to both squeeze into one microsoft pocket? |
| salparadise Oct 26, 2005 6:46 AM EDT |
It only blocks Microsoft if Microsoft wish to continue being stubborn children who refuse to join in. This really is too much, they were part of the group that oversaw this decision and said NOTHING. It's too late to behave like this. I trust someone/s in American will point this out to these politicians. Will that make any difference? If it's pointed out to them in public it might. And yes Helios, you're right, the hypocrisy is quite staggering. |
| hkwint Oct 26, 2005 7:04 AM EDT |
Well, it seems the fact that MS turns to political squashing instead of technical argumens, is an admission they can't offer what ODF offers. And how can MS claim to be blocked by ODF? ODF, likt the O says, means Open, which is also open for MS? What a FUD/BS! The only thing ODF can't offer which .doc&co can, is macro virusses and links to all kind of programs you don't need to programs like MSNsearch/messenger, which you don't need in government docs. |
| number6x Oct 26, 2005 9:19 AM EDT |
"Generally, the two Democrats argue that the OpenDocument approach will unfairly block Microsoft from much of the state’s electronic documents business." If I were an "un-biased" analyst I would write something like... Attention all investors! Microsoft admits it can no longer compete on technical merits. Microsoft has admitted that it is incapable of implementing the open document standards freely published by the OASIS group. These standards have been implemented by other software companies like Sun, and even by unpaid volunteer amateurs in the free software community. Microsoft claims that adoption of Open Document standards that are published and free for all software companies to implement could lock it out of important business opportunities. This would be like an accounting firm claiming that requiring them to be able to add columns of numbers together could jeopardize future business prospects. This admission of inability to implement simple technical standards comes on the heels of several years of disastrous stumbles by the once great software giant. Microsoft was never able to produce an OS that ran on the Intel 64-bit Itanium architecture, even though Intel made all of the technical specifications available and provided an emulator before the chip was even produced. Compare this to the fact that The GNU/Linux OS, an OS developed by the efforts of volunteers across the internet, and available for free, was ported to the Itanium before the chips even started coming off the assembly line! In a recent Wall Street Journal article Microsoft has admitted that its entire software development system was so badly broken that they had to scrap the long awaited "Longhorn" upgrade to their Windows XP Operating System, and completely redesign their development methods from the ground up. Many of the features promised originally have been dropped in order to meet deadlines that are years later than the original expected ship date. Microsoft has been incapable of delivering the kind of stability and security that enterprise users demand in operating systems, despite spending millions of dollars and decades in development. Compare this to the BSD family of Unix operating systems, that was developed by a bunch of college students. BSD was so capable that it became the basis for AT&T's UNIX, and Sun's Solaris operating systems. BSD is renowned for its stability and security. But this news about Microsoft being unable to implement the simple Open Document standards means that things are going from bad to worse. The OASIS standards form a set of specifications that tell software writers how to save their data to a file in a special text based format called an XML file. For a software company to admit that it may lose out on business because it is incapable of implementing a function to save a file as formatted text is a monumental embarrassment. If Microsoft has become incapable of implementing functionality that unpaid volunteers are capable of implementing, how can they even manage to operate as a business? Microsoft does have huge cash reserves and should be able to re-invent itself as a successful company, but the giant will have to gather its wits and pick itself up after this admission of such complete failure. |
| TxtEdMacs Oct 26, 2005 10:29 AM EDT |
Quoting: ... BSD was so capable that it became the basis for AT&T's UNIX, and Sun's Solaris operating systems... The original Unix was out of AT&T, however, later versions may have leaned heavily upon or were nearly full implementations of BSD. However, I have never read that BSD preceded AT&T's Unix. My reading and impression was that AT&T was restricted on how it could distribute Unix, hence, full source code was included. Moreover, it was altered by the users. While the Berkley System Distribution was inspired by AT&T's Unix it was not a direct copy, despite probably using some of the latter's code. Furthermore, later when AT&T was able to "sell" Unix it attempted to stop BSD in a court case that AT&T lost. Be a bit more careful, the attack teams are better financed than we are, hence, one error will be made to seem to be a terrible fault whereas they can argue without regard for facts or from assertions of questionable validity. If you are ironically inclined: use something like Excel or their presentation software to create bullet points of over simplified buzz words that can have tremendous effect! Or you could use OOo applications and be a bit more forthright and it might be read. Be assured I liked a lot of the points you made. Turn it into a press release and email it around, perhaps it might get "published". If you are ironically inclined: use something like Excel or their presentation software to create bullet points of over simplified buzz words that can have tremendous effect! Or you could use OOo applications and be a bit more forthright and it might be read. |
| number6x Oct 26, 2005 10:43 AM EDT |
TxtEdMacs, I know, I was playing fast with the facts. I did say I was trying to be an 'un-biased' analyst :) It would be more accurate to say that later versions of AT&T Unix were based on BSD. I was trying more for humor than rebuttal. Thanks for your criticism though. Your points about opposition attack teams are especially to the point. |
| TxtEdMacs Oct 26, 2005 11:54 AM EDT |
Sorry editing ruins the format. I thought I had cut and pasted the last two lines onto the end of the last paragraph. |
| hkwint Oct 26, 2005 2:34 PM EDT |
(Speaking about MS incompetence and history): Hey, did someone ever read something about Multics? Multics preceded Unix (well, many of the ideas of Multics found their way into Unix), and was also invented by a university (MIT), and GE. Later, Bell joined in. Wikipedia has a nice article, and the site multicians.org tell it also in great detail. I'm only 21 years old, so I don't know much about old stuff like that, but I read a whole Multics-install took only 4,5Mb. The source code was only 315kB (which some people thought 'much too complex' at the time). The whole thing was programmed in a high-level language (PL/I). After some security-attacks, it was made 'secure by design', and probably was more secure than hardened Linux is today. (Okay, this are things I just read, not things I know about). Now, why am I referring to this? Because I believe, if Multics was invented in the 60's, was secure by design, and as small as it was, MS should also be capable of making a secure, small OS. There's a nice pdf at http://www.acsac.org/2002/papers/classic-multics.pdf which tells why Multics was secure. It seems Multics was also 'kindof' OpenSource (Gnu&GPL didn't exist back then). Anyone, including people from MS, could read this stuff. But for some reason they don't, and the 250Mb~1Gb a Windows-install takes, only gets more and more. So, the problem is not MS, the problem is consumers are stupid. What if they knew about Multics being more secure more than 20 years ago than MS products are now? What if they knew 'security' wasn't an issue when Windows was designed? (BTW Linux also isn't secure by design and too big compared to Multics in my opinion. There's a nice fortune about this: "I still maintain the point that designing a monolithic kernel in 1991 is a fundamental error. Be thankful you are not my student. You would not get a high grade for such a design :-)" (Andrew Tanenbaum to Linus Torvalds) What if people knew Win's 'added security features' only makes things worse, because it means more code? What if they knew, Linux-users don't need virusscanners, and never spend time reparing stuff when their browser is 'hosed'? Well, when they knew all this, they wouldn't be paying > $80 for WinXP anymore, I suppose. MS is incapable of making a decent OS, but they are very capable of keeping people dumb and abusing stupid people. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!