Microsoft flame (or not) :)
Moderator: General Moderators
Microsoft flame (or not) :)
Alright, I don't want to start a Microsoft flame war - let me just get that out in the open. I just want to continue the thread that came from here, and, surprisingly, resulted in these 2 conclusions:
1) We have intelligent people here - the discussion was intelligent, not a flame war, and
2) That computing would not be where it is without Microsoft.
I'm all for keeping (1) intact, but I'd like to challenge (2). Instead, I contend, Microsoft has a history of taking their innovations from academia/other companies, then trying to lock out cooperation with other products. I've posted some responses to quotes from that thread in my blog here, and I'd hope that people could discuss their objections to my arguments. Tell me where I'm wrong - That's what I'm hoping for.
1) We have intelligent people here - the discussion was intelligent, not a flame war, and
2) That computing would not be where it is without Microsoft.
I'm all for keeping (1) intact, but I'd like to challenge (2). Instead, I contend, Microsoft has a history of taking their innovations from academia/other companies, then trying to lock out cooperation with other products. I've posted some responses to quotes from that thread in my blog here, and I'd hope that people could discuss their objections to my arguments. Tell me where I'm wrong - That's what I'm hoping for.
well i think your right, but the fact of it all is that we live in a commercially driven world, and nothing is going to happen unless someone can make money out of it...
It just so happens that the people who's money is behind virtually all of it these days are particularly unscroupulous and downright greedy.
You want to change that, i wouldnt be too surprised if you would have to totally abolish money and install a communist state...
Good Luck
It just so happens that the people who's money is behind virtually all of it these days are particularly unscroupulous and downright greedy.
You want to change that, i wouldnt be too surprised if you would have to totally abolish money and install a communist state...
Good Luck
Coco, I don't understand your position. What am I right about, and where do I state that something's going to happen without people making money out of it? Let me restate, I am not against Microsoft, or against Microsoft making money. I am against Microsoft trying to lock out innovation and against Microsoft practicing poor software engineering. With the amount of capital they have, Microsoft could be the force for tremendous good in the computing world, but they instead try to "embrace and extend" existing technologies so that competitors can't enter the market.
While abolishing money certainly is a utopian goal, I don't think that would work at all. What position that I have would require abolishing money?
While abolishing money certainly is a utopian goal, I don't think that would work at all. What position that I have would require abolishing money?
computing shouldnt be the way it is. but it is the way it is because MS is greedy, which is why MS acts in such a way that you describe. As would most other companies in that position. Sure they can do much good for computing, but they wont because they would lose money to do so.
Henceforth the only way to make the computing industry 'nice' is to remove money from the equation. Sure you can try legal action against the big companies but MS already showed that that wont work
Henceforth the only way to make the computing industry 'nice' is to remove money from the equation. Sure you can try legal action against the big companies but MS already showed that that wont work
what? Here's the first part of your argument: Microsoft is the way it is because it is the way it is. Then, you say there can be no cooperation between competing companies? I disagree - I'll put Sun out there as an example of a fairly well-behaved company. How about IBM? Both have been making money and have recently embraced the approach of cooperating on standards, but competing on products designed around those standards.
I still fail to see how removing money from any equation solves anything that I've been talking about.
I still fail to see how removing money from any equation solves anything that I've been talking about.
Okay, you first contention at the start of this thread is to challenege conclusion 2, namely this:
2) That computing would not be where it is without Microsoft.
However, immediatly following said challenge, you post this:
Ford's Model T is said to have opened up the door to the automobile market, but it wasn't the first car. Henry Ford wasn't the only one using 4 tires and a steering wheel, but his Model T did open the industry up.
The same thing can be said for Microsoft. They took what others did, and mass produced it.
Also, your stance on your Blog basically comes down to this "what I do have a problem with is file formats and application interfaces which are intended to lock out customers at the expense of innovation. " This idea is repeated here in this post:
Microsoft also uses alot of standards. Heck, it's even submitting C# to ISO (it already passed through the ECMA). People are skeptical, of course, but they are skeptical because it's MS.
The simple fact being, if your taking an stance to argue point 2, you have failed to do so.
The fundamental idea was that MS helped the industry grow, not whether how they did it was ethical or not.
2) That computing would not be where it is without Microsoft.
However, immediatly following said challenge, you post this:
That doesn't defeat the original argument, that the computing world would not be where it is without Mircosoft. Regardless of the tactics used, the fact remains.Instead, I contend, Microsoft has a history of taking their innovations from academia/other companies, then trying to lock out cooperation with other products.
Ford's Model T is said to have opened up the door to the automobile market, but it wasn't the first car. Henry Ford wasn't the only one using 4 tires and a steering wheel, but his Model T did open the industry up.
The same thing can be said for Microsoft. They took what others did, and mass produced it.
Also, your stance on your Blog basically comes down to this "what I do have a problem with is file formats and application interfaces which are intended to lock out customers at the expense of innovation. " This idea is repeated here in this post:
However, lets say this: Your two examples are flawed from the outset. Sun's embrace of standards is halr harted. What standard do they embrace that MS doesn't? What standard has Sun given to the world? Java isn't a standard, they don't want it to be. Sun, in every which way possible, would have loved to have been Microsoft. IBM wasn't always the good company you think they are. Sure, their are lots of standards they use, mostly because they have their hands in the development of a lot of standards.llimllib wrote:what? Here's the first part of your argument: Microsoft is the way it is because it is the way it is. Then, you say there can be no cooperation between competing companies? I disagree - I'll put Sun out there as an example of a fairly well-behaved company. How about IBM? Both have been making money and have recently embraced the approach of cooperating on standards, but competing on products designed around those standards.
Microsoft also uses alot of standards. Heck, it's even submitting C# to ISO (it already passed through the ECMA). People are skeptical, of course, but they are skeptical because it's MS.
The simple fact being, if your taking an stance to argue point 2, you have failed to do so.
The fundamental idea was that MS helped the industry grow, not whether how they did it was ethical or not.
In my blog, I gave proper credit to Microsoft for the one thing they have done, which you point out - they brought computing to the masses; and for this, I am grateful. Perhaps with Microsoft not existing, I never would have discovered my interest in computing.
However, I still contend that *computing* (not computers, or their widespread distribution) has not been significantly advanced by Microsoft since the days of their BASIC compiler. Can you name a significant technological advancement of their own since that time?
Now, in the second part of your response, you question my choice of Sun and IBM, and probably rightly. However, I do think that both companies have taken small steps toward valuing community and standards; IBM has supported Perl/Python/PHP/Linux and Eclipse, Sun has its community java project as well as significant contributions to the openoffice and netbeans projects. What I'm trying to show is that big corporations are not by their nature monopolistic and evil, and thus that I in no way hate Microsoft because it makes money. Heck, I don't even hate Microsoft.
And in the final part, you mention that Microsoft is submitting C# to be standardized; and I applaud that effort. However, I would like to see them even completely document their Windows API or the SMB protocol, let alone standardize them, before I start to believe that Microsoft cares about cooperation and standardization.
So, has MS helped the *computer industry* grow? absolutely.
Have they advanced *computing* since Dos 1.0? I conted that they haven't.
However, I still contend that *computing* (not computers, or their widespread distribution) has not been significantly advanced by Microsoft since the days of their BASIC compiler. Can you name a significant technological advancement of their own since that time?
Now, in the second part of your response, you question my choice of Sun and IBM, and probably rightly. However, I do think that both companies have taken small steps toward valuing community and standards; IBM has supported Perl/Python/PHP/Linux and Eclipse, Sun has its community java project as well as significant contributions to the openoffice and netbeans projects. What I'm trying to show is that big corporations are not by their nature monopolistic and evil, and thus that I in no way hate Microsoft because it makes money. Heck, I don't even hate Microsoft.
And in the final part, you mention that Microsoft is submitting C# to be standardized; and I applaud that effort. However, I would like to see them even completely document their Windows API or the SMB protocol, let alone standardize them, before I start to believe that Microsoft cares about cooperation and standardization.
So, has MS helped the *computer industry* grow? absolutely.
Have they advanced *computing* since Dos 1.0? I conted that they haven't.
well for one thing they have opened computing to the masses
imagine what the internet would be like now if everyone was still using things like dos 1.0... sure my dad still cant type with more than 1 finger, but at least he can get online without needing to be a total geek.
MS made/make shoddy software, because its faster and cheaper. They are 'mean' to their competiton, because competiton is good for the consumer and bad for profits. Issuing standards means you get to sell licenses for standards, which make money.
How much money have the founder writers of php made from php?
You want a nice computer industry where everyone acts like gentlemen and all standards are open source. Like i said above, this isnt going to happen, solely because of the existence of money. Why give someone something if you can sell them it? Look at every single company that has ever held a monopoly or near monopoly of an industry. The british telecommunications industry is a good example, BT still own all the exchanges so its inherently still a monopoly, and they are clearly going to fight to the death to keep it. If anything you are accusing MS of good business sense.
imagine what the internet would be like now if everyone was still using things like dos 1.0... sure my dad still cant type with more than 1 finger, but at least he can get online without needing to be a total geek.
MS made/make shoddy software, because its faster and cheaper. They are 'mean' to their competiton, because competiton is good for the consumer and bad for profits. Issuing standards means you get to sell licenses for standards, which make money.
How much money have the founder writers of php made from php?
You want a nice computer industry where everyone acts like gentlemen and all standards are open source. Like i said above, this isnt going to happen, solely because of the existence of money. Why give someone something if you can sell them it? Look at every single company that has ever held a monopoly or near monopoly of an industry. The british telecommunications industry is a good example, BT still own all the exchanges so its inherently still a monopoly, and they are clearly going to fight to the death to keep it. If anything you are accusing MS of good business sense.
coco,
a) i'm not suggesting anyone should use dos 1.0 to access the internet, and
b) it appears we're at a fundamental impasse: you believe it is impossible for a profitable company to act responsibly, and I do not. This difference is not something I will try to argue; it's beyond the scope of what we're talking about.
a) i'm not suggesting anyone should use dos 1.0 to access the internet, and
b) it appears we're at a fundamental impasse: you believe it is impossible for a profitable company to act responsibly, and I do not. This difference is not something I will try to argue; it's beyond the scope of what we're talking about.
OK, now that I've actually read all of the posts, I'll chime in.
I don't like MS.
And I'll say one more thing. We have IBM to thank for opening up the platform that we know as the PC that has helped computing get to where it is today. Not MS. MS was smart and lucky to see that for what it was. As a result of an open platform, any maker that wanted to build boxes that would house DOS or Windows could do so. The number of companies grew and the prices came down. The proliferation of the PC was garaunteed.
Microsoft helped, but wasn't the cause.
But the only thing that Microsoft has done that has really advanced computing is nothing. Same goes for Apple. Same goes for Sun. Same goes for Linux and BSD, as a matter of fact. All the software and OS people have done is continue to make incremental improvements on the same basic ideas. The GUI and the mouse were both big ideas, but none of the above mentioned companies had anything to do with them.
Above and beyond that, we are seeing a golden age of computing AT THE HARDWARE LEVEL. That has been spurned on by competition. Competition is allways a motivator of innovation
This is the reason the American aviation industry is dominant. This is the reason the Italian and Japanese motorcycle industries are dominant.
Anyways, I DO hate MS becuase they DON'T support competition. Same goes for Intel.
BDKR
I don't like MS.
And I'll say one more thing. We have IBM to thank for opening up the platform that we know as the PC that has helped computing get to where it is today. Not MS. MS was smart and lucky to see that for what it was. As a result of an open platform, any maker that wanted to build boxes that would house DOS or Windows could do so. The number of companies grew and the prices came down. The proliferation of the PC was garaunteed.
Microsoft helped, but wasn't the cause.
But the only thing that Microsoft has done that has really advanced computing is nothing. Same goes for Apple. Same goes for Sun. Same goes for Linux and BSD, as a matter of fact. All the software and OS people have done is continue to make incremental improvements on the same basic ideas. The GUI and the mouse were both big ideas, but none of the above mentioned companies had anything to do with them.
Above and beyond that, we are seeing a golden age of computing AT THE HARDWARE LEVEL. That has been spurned on by competition. Competition is allways a motivator of innovation
Anyways, I DO hate MS becuase they DON'T support competition. Same goes for Intel.
nah its easy for a company to be nice to people... quite alot of companies depend on their reputation with the public to sell their services...
what im trying to say is that its virtually impossible for a company that possesses a monoply to be nice to people, since they (the people) have no real choice to the contrary
sure there are loads of other OS's out there, but they arent exactly userfriendly, and they arent great on the compatibility idea. Sure maybe MS has a hand in the compatibility, but if hardware developers decide not to release linux drivers is that MS's fault? Is it MS's fault that until recently Linux was nigh on impossible for nearly every member of the human race to install? no (i installed XP in under an hour, and it worked perfectly from the box. Am i unsual?)
Sure i argue that money is what makes the industry 'bad', but without money we likely would still be using dos.
Besides which how many jobs has MS created (directly and indirectly) globally?
what im trying to say is that its virtually impossible for a company that possesses a monoply to be nice to people, since they (the people) have no real choice to the contrary
sure there are loads of other OS's out there, but they arent exactly userfriendly, and they arent great on the compatibility idea. Sure maybe MS has a hand in the compatibility, but if hardware developers decide not to release linux drivers is that MS's fault? Is it MS's fault that until recently Linux was nigh on impossible for nearly every member of the human race to install? no (i installed XP in under an hour, and it worked perfectly from the box. Am i unsual?)
Sure i argue that money is what makes the industry 'bad', but without money we likely would still be using dos.
Besides which how many jobs has MS created (directly and indirectly) globally?
Microsoft was in the right place at the right time. An accident of computing history you could say.Coco wrote:nah its easy for a company to be nice to people... quite alot of companies depend on their reputation with the public to sell their services...
what im trying to say is that its virtually impossible for a company that possesses a monoply to be nice to people, since they (the people) have no real choice to the contrary
sure there are loads of other OS's out there, but they arent exactly userfriendly, and they arent great on the compatibility idea. Sure maybe MS has a hand in the compatibility, but if hardware developers decide not to release linux drivers is that MS's fault? Is it MS's fault that until recently Linux was nigh on impossible for nearly every member of the human race to install? no (i installed XP in under an hour, and it worked perfectly from the box. Am i unsual?)
Sure i argue that money is what makes the industry 'bad', but without money we likely would still be using dos.
Besides which how many jobs has MS created (directly and indirectly) globally?
BDKR
- twigletmac
- Her Royal Site Adminness
- Posts: 5371
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 2:21 am
- Location: Essex, UK
Microsoft's dominance is down to being in the right place at the right time as BDKR points out. Move a few key players around and it could have all turned out very differently, we could all be running CP/M XP now and ranting and railing against Digital Research and calling Gary Kildall a demon. Microsoft would like to think that without it there would be no computer industry today but it's not true, another company would've just taken their place.
http://www.cadigital.com/kildall.htm
Mac
http://www.cadigital.com/kildall.htm
Mac
Microsoft have advanced computing, it is because of there good business practice that people are incensed with them and therefore have the 'I'll show them attitude' - this is what has advanced computing, everyone has had a good kick up the jacksie.
MS gave me my start in life as a programmer, the first development tool I used was MS Access and I used that to learn about databases and coding, it was readily available and relatively cheap. If it hadn't been for its availability and ease of use I probably would not be where I am today. Today I do not use any MS development tools, I use Borland's Delphi for Windows applications and I use PHP/MySQL/Oracle for browser based corporate applications. I do not use MS development tools because I do not like their development tools and it has nothing to do with my view on the company.
I like the company and I wish I had been as lucky as Bill Gates, yes it was luck, right place, right time and he took the risk. The way they do business is the way they have always done business, when they bought the complete rights to DOS for $50,000(or whatever the sum was) which then found its way into every PC ever produced they made a packet. So how can the man at the top even consider doing business another way when buying up the competition has worked from day one.
If they are as evil as everyone seems to make out then maybe one day they will get what is coming to them.
On the subject of IBM and the PC. One man at IBM had the idea for the PC, prior to that IBM would not build a machine that did not have IBM only parts in it. IBM let that person continue with his 'pet' project that they thought would never catch on, how wrong they were, when it did catch on they reeled it in and put in place their usual bureaucracy, but luckily they also allowed other companies to make IBM clones or we may have ended up with an Apple situation there. So IBM at that time were very stuck in their ways and it nearly cost them their company, they had to change their attitude to business. It is only when it was going to COST them money did they change how they operate, why should Microsoft be any different, if they are in profit then why change the way they operate, I sure as hell wouldn't jepordise my business just to satisfy the ideas/beliefs of someone else.
A good book on the IBM story is 'The fall of big blue' (I think) can't remember the author but it makes interesting reading. There is also a good bit in it on the IBM/Microsoft partnership to produce a GUI, which eventually became OS2 and Windows and why the partnership did not work. So why did Windows become successful and OS2 fail miserably? they both came from the same egg, hhmmm.
I think it is so easy for other companies to blame Microsoft for their own failings rather than taking a closer look at home, if their products where really so wonderful I don't think MS would have the 'monopoly' that it does.
My main goal in life is to make money so that I can provide for my family and I am comfortable, to do that I am lucky enough to do what I enjoy the most and that is software development. If people wish to give away their software then that is their choice, I however want to make money from things that I create or improve upon, and you never know maybe I'll be running the next Microsoft.
MS gave me my start in life as a programmer, the first development tool I used was MS Access and I used that to learn about databases and coding, it was readily available and relatively cheap. If it hadn't been for its availability and ease of use I probably would not be where I am today. Today I do not use any MS development tools, I use Borland's Delphi for Windows applications and I use PHP/MySQL/Oracle for browser based corporate applications. I do not use MS development tools because I do not like their development tools and it has nothing to do with my view on the company.
I like the company and I wish I had been as lucky as Bill Gates, yes it was luck, right place, right time and he took the risk. The way they do business is the way they have always done business, when they bought the complete rights to DOS for $50,000(or whatever the sum was) which then found its way into every PC ever produced they made a packet. So how can the man at the top even consider doing business another way when buying up the competition has worked from day one.
If they are as evil as everyone seems to make out then maybe one day they will get what is coming to them.
On the subject of IBM and the PC. One man at IBM had the idea for the PC, prior to that IBM would not build a machine that did not have IBM only parts in it. IBM let that person continue with his 'pet' project that they thought would never catch on, how wrong they were, when it did catch on they reeled it in and put in place their usual bureaucracy, but luckily they also allowed other companies to make IBM clones or we may have ended up with an Apple situation there. So IBM at that time were very stuck in their ways and it nearly cost them their company, they had to change their attitude to business. It is only when it was going to COST them money did they change how they operate, why should Microsoft be any different, if they are in profit then why change the way they operate, I sure as hell wouldn't jepordise my business just to satisfy the ideas/beliefs of someone else.
A good book on the IBM story is 'The fall of big blue' (I think) can't remember the author but it makes interesting reading. There is also a good bit in it on the IBM/Microsoft partnership to produce a GUI, which eventually became OS2 and Windows and why the partnership did not work. So why did Windows become successful and OS2 fail miserably? they both came from the same egg, hhmmm.
I think it is so easy for other companies to blame Microsoft for their own failings rather than taking a closer look at home, if their products where really so wonderful I don't think MS would have the 'monopoly' that it does.
My main goal in life is to make money so that I can provide for my family and I am comfortable, to do that I am lucky enough to do what I enjoy the most and that is software development. If people wish to give away their software then that is their choice, I however want to make money from things that I create or improve upon, and you never know maybe I'll be running the next Microsoft.
Just read your blog -
No they bought the complete rights for it, was the CP/M developer not the one that turned down IBM's offer to use it in their PC's before IBM went to MS.They stole DOS (command-line) from the guy who wrote CP/M
I agree that Xerox had it first, but not sure if MS copied it from Macintosh, will check the facts and get back to you on that one. Also bear in mind that it was an IBM/Microsoft partneship that created it not just Microsoft.copied the GUI from Macintosh, which got it from Xerox PARC
Is that a bad thing, maybe it would have been better if they had created a proprietary one.took their TCP/IP stack from BSD
I do disagree with this comment strongly, I haven't been conditioned to using MS, I am learning all the time and will never stop learning or teaching others, but my learning/teaching is in the field of programming not *nix administration or windows administration. I don't have the time to take away from my programming learning to learn *nix administration, nor do I want to. Windows makes it easy to configure things like networks/firewalls etc that way I can get on with the stuff that I enjoy and make a living from.The reason that you have such problems with *nix, IMHO, is that you are conditioned to using Microsoft so much that you forgot how hard it was to learn. The *nix community is very helpful, and would have guided you through your growing problems much like we do for n00bs on this board.