Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: GNU/Linux Can Gain as Pre-Vista Windows Gets Deprecated

In article <1869447.3auvWV7BVg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
> ____/ Greg Cox on Thursday 10 January 2008 03:12 : \____
> 
> > In article <e7e64024-b33c-4467-86b3-
> > 34b42df1d9bc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rex.ballard@xxxxxxxxx
> > says...
> >> On Jan 9, 2:28 pm, "Roger Wilco" <wi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > >> `----
> >> > >>http://sun-weekend.com/paper/?asw=view&asw=view&sun=38093308610108200...
> >> >
> >> > linux "might" "could" "may" "can" "possibly" "almost" "could be" "IF"
> >> > "could easily" "could add"
> >> >
> >> > Blah-blah-blah. A bunch of long winded no-nothing blathering about some
> >> > purely hypothetical future neither one knows nothing about.
> >> 
> >> Precisely the point of my post.  People have been predicting "The Year
> >> of Linux on the Desktop" for almost a decade, and I had even expected
> >> it since 1994.  Yet, for almost 15 years, Microsoft has been able to
> >> maintain it's monopoly, even in the face of it's on incompetence and
> >> technical inferiority.
> >> 
> >> Microsoft is the perfect study in Economics for a Monopoly.
> >> 
> >> http://tinyurl.com/36guok
> >> 
> >> <quote>
> >> # Ways for policy makers to correct the inefficiency.
> >> 
> >>    1. antitrust laws
> >>    2. regulations (AC regulation and MC regulation)
> >>    3. public ownership
> >> </quote>
> >> 
> >> Antitrust proved to be completely ineffective.
> > 
> > It seems to be working since the settlement some 5 years ago.  Microsoft
> > has been forced to treat all OEMs equally, charge a uniform amount for
> > Windows licenses, and not interfere if any OEM wants to ship boxes with
> > Linux installed.  You call that ineffective regulation?
> 
> The regulation is /extremely/ ineffective. It achieved almost nothing of any
> significance. Where does one even start when it comes to giving concrete
> examples?

On the contrary, the regulation is extremely effective.  The antitrust 
settlement removed all ability of Microsoft to control OEMs by changing 
prices they pay for Windows.  In addition, any deal they offer to one 
OEM has to be offered to all OEMs.  Since the settlement, Microsoft has 
been unable to pit one OEM against another or control what third party 
middleware OEMs install on their boxes.

Please tell me you do understand that just holding monopoly power is 
perfectly legal.  So breaking the monopoly can't, in and of itself, be a 
goal of regulation.

> 
> >> Although Microsoft is a public corporation, Bill and Steve own so many
> >> shares that they can't be fired, effectively making Microsoft a
> >> privately controlled corporation.
> > 
> > So Rex, how many shares do Steve and Bill own that makes it so that they
> > can't be fired?  Let's take a look.  As of September 7, 2007, Bill Gates
> > owned 9.33% of Microsoft's stock and Steve Ballmer owned 4.34%.
> > Combined gives them 13.67%.
> > <http://www.microsoft.com/msft/download/ar07/Proxy_2007.doc>
> > So tell us again how 13.67% gives them controlling interest in the
> > corporation.
> 
> You're looking at the wrong place. Look at Bill's (and Steve's) bank accounts
> and the Gates Foundation, which in many ways has served as a proxy and a
> guardian for Microsoft for almost a decade.

What do Bill and Steve's bank accounts have to do about controlling 
interest in Microsoft?  Answer: nothing since holding voting shares of 
stock is the only determinant.  The Gates Foundation has an endowment of 
around $38 billion.  Microsoft has a market capitalization of around 
$320 billion.  Do the math and you have to conclude that the Gates 
Foundation would account for < 12% of Microsoft.  So Bill's personal 
holdings plus Steve's personal holdings plus the Gates Foundation's 
holdings represent a max of 26% of Microsoft's stock.  And, of course, 
we all know that the foundation's assets are not 100% invested in 
Microsoft stock by your own postings detailing their investments in oil 
companies, publishing, etc.  So tell me how this gives Bill and Steve 
absolute protection from being fired as Rex claimed.

> 
> >> Microsoft as also avoided all attempts at regulation.
> > 
> > So all that stuff with the EU was just a sham?
> 
> They messed up with Samba (initially). They also failed to address new
> anticompetitive schemes like Silverlight. Mr. Vinje is looking at this at the
> moment, but it remains to be seen what they will do to address complaints from
> many giants including IBM (about XAML and Microsoft's planned Web hijack).
> it's not to late to know what's going on.

I'll wait to see whether the EU decides this really is an issue or just 
Microsoft's competitors whining to the EU regulators in order to 
hamstring a competitor.

> 
> > Microsoft didn't 
> > transfer all those millions of dollars to the EU?  
> 
> Charging criminals for crime is not the same as changing their ways.

Microsoft agreed to do what the EU wanted in order to stop the 
penalties.  That would seem to me to be the EU forcing Microsoft to 
change their ways.

> 
> > Microsoft wasn't 
> > forced to create a version of Windows that didn't include Media Player?
> 
> *ROTFLMOA* Who uses that? What OEM delivers that? That's one of the biggest
> shams that came out of antitrust 'actions'.

Just because the EU regulators forced Microsoft to do something really 
stupid doesn't mean that it is a sham or that Microsoft is ignoring 
regulation.  On the contrary, Microsoft was forced to create a product 
on their nickel that they knew no one would buy.

> 
> > Microsoft wasn't forced to document and license those internal APIs in
> > Windows Server that the Samba project now has access to?
> 
> After /how/ long? Why were standard protocols ignored in the first place (hint:
> watch the leaked Halloween Memos)?

Where is the law that requires Microsoft, or any other software company 
for that matter, to only use standard protocols?  Answer: there isn't.  
So you really have nothing to whine about here.

> 
> > Please Rex, you really need to find some kind of drug that allows you to
> > live in the same reality that the rest of us do.
> 
> And then come the attacks on one's credibility. Nice smears you got there.

For me, Rex lost all credibility years ago.  I also proved above that he 
hasn't stated anything in this thread to gain any back.

-- 
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those that understand binary and those that don't." - Unknown

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index