- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Is .NET on GNU/Linux a Trojan Horse?
|
|
|
Comments (38)
18 earlier comments in the full thread.
>>Adobe have nothing to gain by deliberately axing their Linux support.
> What dino said, and, neither have Microsoft.
Wrong... the do have something to gain. Right now they will support it as much as they can, however uneasy it makes them. Having it on Linux / Mac will help them permeate their client side technology throughout the internet. They are hoping that a significant share of web sites and services will use their tech. This will go on for about three or four years... but then the gotcha comes...
They will release a magical new version complete with wizzbang "features" that they'll tell you you cannot live without, and release the new version on the web. The trick it that this new version will contain all manner of patented secret crap that they won't allow the Moonlight people to legally include in their implementation. It may even contain some tightly integrated messaging stuff that will only work on a Microsoft IIS web server, or only through Internet Explorer. There are a number of ways they can do it... but either way, they will cut off any chance of the Linux implementation of progressing past that point.
At that point they will hope to have people saying "but this technology is all over the web, and it doesn't work with Linux... oh Microsoft, come save us from this incompatibility nightmare." They think that if they can lock people into a dependence on one of their technologies, then they can use that dependence to lock people into using their operating system.
All Adobe wants to do is to increase their market share of Flash. They gain nothing by pulling Linux support.
> What dino said, and, neither have Microsoft.
Wrong... the do have something to gain. Right now they will support it as much as they can, however uneasy it makes them. Having it on Linux / Mac will help them permeate their client side technology throughout the internet. They are hoping that a significant share of web sites and services will use their tech. This will go on for about three or four years... but then the gotcha comes...
They will release a magical new version complete with wizzbang "features" that they'll tell you you cannot live without, and release the new version on the web. The trick it that this new version will contain all manner of patented secret crap that they won't allow the Moonlight people to legally include in their implementation. It may even contain some tightly integrated messaging stuff that will only work on a Microsoft IIS web server, or only through Internet Explorer. There are a number of ways they can do it... but either way, they will cut off any chance of the Linux implementation of progressing past that point.
At that point they will hope to have people saying "but this technology is all over the web, and it doesn't work with Linux... oh Microsoft, come save us from this incompatibility nightmare." They think that if they can lock people into a dependence on one of their technologies, then they can use that dependence to lock people into using their operating system.
All Adobe wants to do is to increase their market share of Flash. They gain nothing by pulling Linux support.
Ummm..jacog:
Time to wake up from that 20 year sleep. Microsoft already tried that and it almost worked.
They had the web locked up tight with Internet Explorer and Windows Media was kicking real, quicktime, and anything else in the teeth.
After a while, the world didn't like it, and for reasons you really need to understand.
The world has become a bigger and more diverse place -- AND -- companies are making money from the internet.
That combination killed Microsoft's plans. The equation is simple: businesses want to sell things and the fewer people they can sell things to, the unhappier they are.
Life was easy in the old days. "Everybody" used Internet Explorer and "Everybody" used Windows, and the internet was new and wonderful and so much money was there for the taking and it was so hard to develop for the couple of percent or so who didn't do that -- Microsoft ruled the world.
Then came Europe and the rest of the world and Firefox and Mac resurgence and Safari and Linux desktop uptick and -- worst of all -- flash. There was a much more divided world AND a reasonable way to develop for nearly all of it.
Microsoft's grand plans will never work again. Since the turn of the century, they have been a study in failure. They start with a huge base, so they continue to make money, but their future depends on figuring out how to live in a world they can't own.
Time to wake up from that 20 year sleep. Microsoft already tried that and it almost worked.
They had the web locked up tight with Internet Explorer and Windows Media was kicking real, quicktime, and anything else in the teeth.
After a while, the world didn't like it, and for reasons you really need to understand.
The world has become a bigger and more diverse place -- AND -- companies are making money from the internet.
That combination killed Microsoft's plans. The equation is simple: businesses want to sell things and the fewer people they can sell things to, the unhappier they are.
Life was easy in the old days. "Everybody" used Internet Explorer and "Everybody" used Windows, and the internet was new and wonderful and so much money was there for the taking and it was so hard to develop for the couple of percent or so who didn't do that -- Microsoft ruled the world.
Then came Europe and the rest of the world and Firefox and Mac resurgence and Safari and Linux desktop uptick and -- worst of all -- flash. There was a much more divided world AND a reasonable way to develop for nearly all of it.
Microsoft's grand plans will never work again. Since the turn of the century, they have been a study in failure. They start with a huge base, so they continue to make money, but their future depends on figuring out how to live in a world they can't own.
I never said the plan would work. :)
But you seem to think they have somehow learned from their mistakes. You're underestimating their stubbornness. I mean, wot the heck is all this OOXML nonsense about anyway?
But you seem to think they have somehow learned from their mistakes. You're underestimating their stubbornness. I mean, wot the heck is all this OOXML nonsense about anyway?
> I mean, wot the heck is all this OOXML nonsense about anyway?
You are misreading that. OOXML is three things:
1. A desperate desire to hold on to their monopoly 2. A desire not to recode work they've already done 3. A recognition that the world is out there and that standards matter
Let me ask you this simple question, weedhopper:
When were .doc, .xls, .ppt, or any other Microsoft document format submitted to a standards body?
They weren't. Microsoft never had to bother with that in the past. Now they do.
If at all possible, they will ram their standards through to serve their standards. No surprise there. This is Microsoft we are talking about.
Let's face it...All this stuff that has free folk up in arms: Novell agreement, mono, Moonlight, OOXML, etc, is proof that Microsoft has recognized a sea change and is trying to figure out how it can retain its position in the new world.
If you think Microsoft will never come around, I suggest you look at IBM. They wrote Microsoft's playbook. There was never a bigger, badder monopolist than IBM. The only way that I can imagine the old IBM to have been a "better" company than Microsoft is in the quality of its products, but that has to consider the very different world that the IBM monopoly operated in. They sold the hardware and charged millions of dollars for stuff made to mil-spec. They also provided the field technicians. They had a level of control Microsoft can only dream about. Microsoft, by comparison, is a piker. They have lots of money -- thanks to inflation and the incredible margins on software -- but IBM remains the gold standard for IT monopolies.
Now...here's the kicker:
If you ask yourself which major multinational corporation is free software's biggest friend today, what's the first name that comes to your mind? If it's not IBM, you haven't been paying attention.
In the late 80s and early 90s, IBM when through the same thing Microsoft is going through now. The rise of the PC was denting its hardware business. It's efforts to establish its own standards with the micro channel and OS/2 failed. Some people even predicted the end of IBM as an independent company.
T'ain't that way today, now is it?
You are misreading that. OOXML is three things:
1. A desperate desire to hold on to their monopoly 2. A desire not to recode work they've already done 3. A recognition that the world is out there and that standards matter
Let me ask you this simple question, weedhopper:
When were .doc, .xls, .ppt, or any other Microsoft document format submitted to a standards body?
They weren't. Microsoft never had to bother with that in the past. Now they do.
If at all possible, they will ram their standards through to serve their standards. No surprise there. This is Microsoft we are talking about.
Let's face it...All this stuff that has free folk up in arms: Novell agreement, mono, Moonlight, OOXML, etc, is proof that Microsoft has recognized a sea change and is trying to figure out how it can retain its position in the new world.
If you think Microsoft will never come around, I suggest you look at IBM. They wrote Microsoft's playbook. There was never a bigger, badder monopolist than IBM. The only way that I can imagine the old IBM to have been a "better" company than Microsoft is in the quality of its products, but that has to consider the very different world that the IBM monopoly operated in. They sold the hardware and charged millions of dollars for stuff made to mil-spec. They also provided the field technicians. They had a level of control Microsoft can only dream about. Microsoft, by comparison, is a piker. They have lots of money -- thanks to inflation and the incredible margins on software -- but IBM remains the gold standard for IT monopolies.
Now...here's the kicker:
If you ask yourself which major multinational corporation is free software's biggest friend today, what's the first name that comes to your mind? If it's not IBM, you haven't been paying attention.
In the late 80s and early 90s, IBM when through the same thing Microsoft is going through now. The rise of the PC was denting its hardware business. It's efforts to establish its own standards with the micro channel and OS/2 failed. Some people even predicted the end of IBM as an independent company.
T'ain't that way today, now is it?
dino, excellent analysis.
Can't argue with the IBM example... But, I still think you two are giving MIcrosoft way too much benefit of the doubt.
Jacog, how do you suggest Microsoft got where they are today?
Through an extremely aggressive corporate strategy.
The times are changing though, and their past strategies might not be the best ones to move forward with, as Dino pointed out... but you guys seem to think they are changing their ways... I disagree... I think they are going to be employing the same old anti-competitive nonsense for a while to come still.
Let's have this discussion again in 5 years.
For now, go to YouTube... there's a hilarious advert there for Windows 1.0, featuring Steve Ballmer selling the product like a used car salesman... the guy is mental. I expect very little rational thinking from him.
The times are changing though, and their past strategies might not be the best ones to move forward with, as Dino pointed out... but you guys seem to think they are changing their ways... I disagree... I think they are going to be employing the same old anti-competitive nonsense for a while to come still.
Let's have this discussion again in 5 years.
For now, go to YouTube... there's a hilarious advert there for Windows 1.0, featuring Steve Ballmer selling the product like a used car salesman... the guy is mental. I expect very little rational thinking from him.
Quoting:Through an extremely aggressive corporate strategy.
exactly, and it takes focus, and rational thinking to implement an aggressive corporate strategy.
> ...exactly, and it takes focus, and rational thinking to implement an aggressive corporate strategy.
I disagree, any thug can implement an "aggressive corporate strategy". You are merely arguing that Microsoft is an adept thug. That I will agree, but a thug is still a thug.
I disagree, any thug can implement an "aggressive corporate strategy". You are merely arguing that Microsoft is an adept thug. That I will agree, but a thug is still a thug.
> That I will agree, but a thug is still a thug.
Nobody argues that Microsoft is not a thug. But what on earth make you think thug = irrational?
Nobody argues that Microsoft is not a thug. But what on earth make you think thug = irrational?
I would agree with Dinotrac's analogy. Microsoft is trying something else. The thing is, however, that this does not necessarily mean Microsoft is completely tossing away its old strategies of lock-in and that there is no conceivable way for them to use Silverlight and Moonlight to this end. Dinotrac, you pointed something that is quite likely true, but I think is only a part of the picture.
They may as well be trying both things at once, the changed strategy combined with the old strategy. And with the current management still active (Ballmer and Co.) it just seems too hard to trust whatever signs of change they exhibit. Hence the continued, and according to your opinion apparently foolish and irrational, vigilance among some in the Free Software community.
On Libervis.com you agreed with the assertion that some in the Free Software community started believing Microsoft's FUD.
You might have missed it, but my response to that was that we may "have been *affected* (not seduced) by Microsoft's FUD, but whether we started actually believing it or not is another thing. Perhaps we have simply taken the hint at being more cautious and wakeful with regards to this issue. In that sense Microsoft's FUD did not weaken us, but made us stronger and more vigilant. Perhaps it is because of this increased vigilance that we are anticipating certain threats like the one described here.
At the end of the day, the warning shouts have been cast. Some will heed it as something prudent to follow up on and others will ignore it. Who was right of the two only time will show."
So feel free to go your way and do as you wish and leave others who disagree with your strategy to do their own thing. If we want to be more cautious that shouldn't bother you nor should it be something for you to laugh at every chance you get (hint: http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/26009/ , seriously, what's up with that?)
They may as well be trying both things at once, the changed strategy combined with the old strategy. And with the current management still active (Ballmer and Co.) it just seems too hard to trust whatever signs of change they exhibit. Hence the continued, and according to your opinion apparently foolish and irrational, vigilance among some in the Free Software community.
On Libervis.com you agreed with the assertion that some in the Free Software community started believing Microsoft's FUD.
You might have missed it, but my response to that was that we may "have been *affected* (not seduced) by Microsoft's FUD, but whether we started actually believing it or not is another thing. Perhaps we have simply taken the hint at being more cautious and wakeful with regards to this issue. In that sense Microsoft's FUD did not weaken us, but made us stronger and more vigilant. Perhaps it is because of this increased vigilance that we are anticipating certain threats like the one described here.
At the end of the day, the warning shouts have been cast. Some will heed it as something prudent to follow up on and others will ignore it. Who was right of the two only time will show."
So feel free to go your way and do as you wish and leave others who disagree with your strategy to do their own thing. If we want to be more cautious that shouldn't bother you nor should it be something for you to laugh at every chance you get (hint: http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/26009/ , seriously, what's up with that?)
> But what on earth make you think thug = irrational?
Being a thug is not conducive to long term success, Dino. Sooner or later, there's always someone bigger or willing to escalate matters.
Being a thug is not conducive to long term success, Dino. Sooner or later, there's always someone bigger or willing to escalate matters.
>Being a thug is not conducive to long term success
Depends on your definition of long-term.
So far, N. Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Red China seem determined to put the lie to you. For that matter, the old Soviet Union had quite a run before it finally fell.
And -- there is always room for a thug with lots of resources to adapt and put on a prettier face for the new world. That seems to be what China is trying with some success.
Depends on your definition of long-term.
So far, N. Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Red China seem determined to put the lie to you. For that matter, the old Soviet Union had quite a run before it finally fell.
And -- there is always room for a thug with lots of resources to adapt and put on a prettier face for the new world. That seems to be what China is trying with some success.
> N. Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Red China
All governments are thugs, Dino, even ours. That's part of the definition. Just ask Bob. :)
Businesses and individuals operate by different rules. Being a thug means you don't have many friends or voluntary customers. You can get away with that when you're a monopoly. It doesn't work so well when there's competition.
All governments are thugs, Dino, even ours. That's part of the definition. Just ask Bob. :)
Businesses and individuals operate by different rules. Being a thug means you don't have many friends or voluntary customers. You can get away with that when you're a monopoly. It doesn't work so well when there's competition.
>It doesn't work so well when there's competition.
That, I think, is why Microsoft will change its stripes. It's only alternative is to die.
That, I think, is why Microsoft will change its stripes. It's only alternative is to die.
> That, I think, is why Microsoft will change its stripes. It's only alternative is to die.
Agreed, but I don't think they will do so under current management. I think it will take a complete changeover in management before they can make the change.
As I noted in another thread, Ballmer is 51 (per Wikipedia). Unless forced out by the board, he'll probably retired at 64 or 65. That's the earliest we can expect Microsoft to start changing. It'll probably take a year or two to work it's way through the company, so don't expect anything for another 15 years or so.
Agreed, but I don't think they will do so under current management. I think it will take a complete changeover in management before they can make the change.
As I noted in another thread, Ballmer is 51 (per Wikipedia). Unless forced out by the board, he'll probably retired at 64 or 65. That's the earliest we can expect Microsoft to start changing. It'll probably take a year or two to work it's way through the company, so don't expect anything for another 15 years or so.
>Agreed, but I don't think they will do so under current management
That may be. It's hard to tell because the current management has never been so embattled as they are now. Maybe they'll respond well or maybe they'll have to get out of the way.
That may be. It's hard to tell because the current management has never been so embattled as they are now. Maybe they'll respond well or maybe they'll have to get out of the way.
> All governments are thugs, Dino, even ours. That's part of the definition. Just ask Bob. :)
Prairie-dogging: Poking one's head up above the cubical wall level to see what's going on.
You don't have to ask me...,
http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/og.asp
Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War by Ludwig von Mises (1944)
Prairie-dogging: Poking one's head up above the cubical wall level to see what's going on.
You don't have to ask me...,
http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/og.asp
Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War by Ludwig von Mises (1944)
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
I happen to think they have acted very rationally, indeed, I think they have been for the most part the only fully rational player in this. The problem is, I think, you are judging the company by it's attempts to maintain it's position in the market place based on what helped it succeed previously.
Microsoft would not have the near monopoly it has it the management had not acted rationally, if they had not had the vision they had (you might not like their vision, but it took that, and good analysis of the facts, and good rational thinking to get where they are.
For the most part it's been Microsoft's competitors who've acted irrationally, and for the most part it still is. And it's irrational thinking that I'm seeing in a lot of posts on the subject of Microsoft and Microsoft initiated technologies.
Things have changed, and a lot of that change is due to Linux and FOSS, but it's still up in the air as to who will fully leverage that change. A lot of what Microsoft, and indeed all the other big players, are doing is to find strategies that advantage them in this changed environment.