Is it right that Microsoft have to divulge their code for windows, after al is it their fault for coming up with a great product that everyone likes?

No, but there hasn't exactly been much choice has there? Due to the Windows monpoly... :razz:

Opening-up the code to everyone means standards go out the window, look at Linux, how many different versions are there now and how difficult is it to get a good compilation without the help of a third party.

I for one would only buy Microsoft compatible stuff from Microsoft, unless the other people who have changed the code have some kind of proof that they have stuck to the standards.

opening up the code to everyone (which isn't precisely what they're having to do) means that everyone can right to the standards that microsoft would like to keep hidden and would like to use as a tool to maintain and extend it's monopoly.

it's a good thing, if they hadn't indulged in illegal monopolist practices they wouldn't be in this situation.

Having a monopoly isn't illegal, protecting it through aggresive anti competative measures and trying to leverage it to extend the monopoly into other areas is illegal and rightly so.

Open source promotes open standards and well written code, hiding things promotes propriertary standards which fragment the market and allow shody code to go unnoticed until yet another blue screen or security whole shows up.

Originally posted by nick2
Opening-up the code to everyone means standards go out the window, look at Linux, how many different versions are there now and how difficult is it to get a good compilation without the help of a third party.

I for one would only buy Microsoft compatible stuff from Microsoft, unless the other people who have changed the code have some kind of proof that they have stuck to the standards.

sorry - to answer the linux question, very easy, you go and download one of the popular distros.

What do you mean about 3rd parties, everyone producing linux distros are 3rd parties, unless you want linus to come and install one for you?

Originally posted by Cyclone
sorry - to answer the linux question, very easy, you go and download one of the popular distros.

What do you mean about 3rd parties, everyone producing linux distros are 3rd parties, unless you want linus to come and install one for you?

I meant Red Hat, Mandrake and the other people who sell the "free" operating system, the average user isn't capaable of assembling all the required components and compiling them themselves, if it was so easy Red Hat would have no customers.

Originally posted by nick2
I meant Red Hat, Mandrake and the other people who sell the "free" operating system, the average user isn't capaable of assembling all the required components and compiling them themselves, if it was so easy Red Hat would have no customers.

they sell support and printed manuals.
They make there distributions available for download for no charge.

Originally posted by Cyclone
they sell support and printed manuals.
They make there distributions available for download for no charge.

Oh, I thought they actually sold the OS too in the box.

It looks to me like they are selling it though : http://www.redhat.com/apps/download/

Originally posted by nick2
Oh, I thought they actually sold the OS too in the box.

It looks to me like they are selling it though : http://www.redhat.com/apps/download/

they would be breaking the gpl license to sell opensource (gpl licensed) code for profit, whether they've modified it or not. GPL is a bit complicated, but you could always look it up.

Redhat are selling a subscription service that includes code updates and support amongst other things.

here's a link (http://www.redhat.com/licenses/gpl.html) to some explanation of the gpl license.

Originally posted by Cyclone
they would be breaking the gpl license to sell opensource (gpl licensed) code for profit, whether they've modified it or not. GPL is a bit complicated, but you could always look it up.

Redhat are selling a subscription service that includes code updates and support amongst other things.

here's a link (http://www.redhat.com/licenses/gpl.html) to some explanation of the gpl license.

Yep, it's complicated. I liked this bit :

"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price."

Originally posted by nick2
Oh, I thought they actually sold the OS too in the box.

It looks to me like they are selling it though : http://www.redhat.com/apps/download/

Linux is an interesting thing. As an 'operating system' (meaning a complete system one can use to operate a computer) it doesn't exist. There is no 'linux operating system'. Mandrake Linux is an operating system. Red Hat Linux is too, as is Slackware, Gentoo, et al.

The fact that they are all based on the same kernel and standards mean that they are all interoperable. Some are even based on others (e.g. Linspire based on Debian).

What they sell [1] is an operating system. What Microsoft sell [2] is an operating system. The difference is that the various Linux based operating systems are based on a common standard base of a Linux kernel, GNU libraries and compiler and other 'standard' pieces of software such as KDE, OpenOffice.org, Firefox, etc. These in turn are based on other standards and conventions, in the same way as FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Mac OS X. These are all from a Unix and POSIX background and are also largely interoperable (some tweaking required).

You'll find that the only operating system that doesn't conform to any standards is Windows. Just because it's biggest (currently) doesn't make it standard. If the worlds biggest car manufacturer decided that they would have a great new way of powering the vehicle, but locked it down so that only they could use it, it would never become a standard because nobody else could use it. This is what MS does all the time (and others, not just MS, although they are the biggest target).


[1] I use 'sell' in the loosest sense, as many are free
[2] along with the right to your own content, the control of your machine and your everlasting soul...

Originally posted by spiffymonkey
You'll find that the only operating system that doesn't conform to any standards is Windows. Just because it's biggest (currently) doesn't make it standard.

If the most commonly used thing isn't the standard then what is ? Or rather, what standards does Windows not conform to ?

Standards are made to encourage efficiency in working, development and understanding, and are meant to benefit an entire industry or populous, they're definately not made just by becoming popular! In any case, do you think that any standards that microsoft make would actually benefit an entire anything? let alone its own industry!

I think its quite naive to say that the whole world being Microsoft is great, just because you and the guy who sits next to you at work know how to use the same word processor.

"Windows and its product family are not standards. At best they are defacto standards, more accurately they are simply the "standard" offerings from a specific vendor. .NET may become another another defacto standard for world, courtesy of Microsoft."

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6888&page=2

Real standards in the computer industry should offer the biggest benefits to developers, who pass those on to users. This has been demonstrated time and time again by the open source movement - look at the LAMP web model - in reverse - PHP running with MySQL, on an apache webserver on a Linux box - in simpler terms - every step of the web-design-publish process free, better thought of by designers, and more popular now than anything microsoft can come out with.

Just look at what corporations chasing 'standards' did for the whole DVD-R / DVD+R mess!

Originally posted by nick2
If the most commonly used thing isn't the standard then what is ? Or rather, what standards does Windows not conform to ?


Standards vary depending on your viewpoint. Word, for instance, is considered by many to be the 'standard' word processor. This is purely on use: more people use Word than any other word processor. There were very good reasons around the Word 5 era for people to choose it over others. Nowadays there's very little innovation and one is as good as another, but the problem is the file format.

Word's document format (commonly referred to as .doc) is proprietary. It is a standard in so far as lots of people have a piece of software (Word) that fully understands and utilises it. It is also a standard in that Microsoft use it a lot.

The problem comes with other word processors. The Word document format is binary and its specifications are no published. Nobody is allowed to make a word processor which uses .doc as its primary document format. In fact, without paying shed-loads to MS, they have to reverse engineer the format as best they can, which will obviously hamper development of a fully working product.

Why is this a problem? I have word and therefore I can read Word files. That's it. OK, now we get to the topic of the original post. Suppose (just suppose) that Windows wasn't the best OS in the entire universe for your purposes, and that there were features in another product that meant that it was better suited to you than Word's document format. However, all the documentation your company has in is Word .doc format, and all the marketting/sales/support/management staff use Word.

Basically, you're gonna have to use Word. And what do you need to use Word (Crossover Office notwithstanding)? Windows. They have a very popular office suite, and aside from a lack-lustre Mac version they are essentially holding offices to ransom. Without opening up the .doc standard and allowing others to create products that can interoperate perfectly with Word documents, there is no room for competition. This is called anti-competitive behaviour, and is one sign of an illegally held monopoly.

This is back to the motor industry example and destroying an existing market by locking it down. By creating internal standards which are depended on by your customers you have lock in. To use that lock in to increase an existing monopoly is illegal and unethical. Companies got locked into the Office file formats before they realised it was a bad move; without another supplier to provide a product that can work with their existing data, they are stuck with MS, and whatever bizarre and extortionate licensing scheme they come up with next.

Just imagine if MS had managed to wangle the rights to the HTML standard before the web got big? Given the state of US copyright and patent law, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility. Would the web ever have got big? Probably. Would sites like this be able to afford to run? No chance. And we'd all be stuck with IE and the holes it brings with absolutely no way of fixing the problems.

I've got an original copy (it was my Dads), and got a "Simpsons" version recently, but I haven't seen "Microsoft's Monopoly". What are the streets / playing pieces like in that version ?

Originally posted by foo_fighter
I've got an original copy (it was my Dads), and got a "Simpsons" version recently, but I haven't seen "Microsoft's Monopoly". What are the streets / playing pieces like in that version ?


All the streets are pre-owned by MS (the bank) complete with hotels built.

There are no 1, 5, 10 or 20 notes.

There are 5 Go To Jails (for a variety of "offences").

Each time you pass go, you must pay MS (the bank) £200 (in order to continue using you "piece")!

HTH.;)


Oh, and you have to keep sticking the board together as it (the board) is made from very poor cardboard.

Originally posted by sccsux
All the streets are pre-owned by MS (the bank) complete with hotels built.

There are no 1, 5, 10 or 20 notes.

There are 5 Go To Jails (for a variety of "offences").

Each time you pass go, you must pay MS (the bank) £200 (in order to continue using you "piece")!

HTH.;)

Oh, and you have to keep sticking the board together as it (the board) is made from very poor cardboard.
Ohh, right...

...doesn't sound as much fun as the ones I've already got...

...I don't think I'll bother buying one. ;)

Oh, come on. Microsoft isn't that bad.

I recently installed Linux (Suse), and I can do very little on it. I cannot watch DVDs because it claims there are problems with piracy. I cannot play games because no games are written for Linux (admittedly, this isn't really the fault of Linux), I cannot connect to the internet without subscribing to a Linux ISP...

Basically I can do everything I need to do in Windows. Why should I create word processor documents in Open Office when I can already do it in Word and not have to reboot afterwards to watch a DVD? In fact, I can already write documents in Open Office without needing to install Linux with the Windows version of Open Office.

I know Microsoft has a monopoly, but it has it for a reason. Because it's the best OS going. I accept that Microsoft does partake in non-competitive activities, but if they have a winning formula then why should they change it? If Linux really wanted to rival Windows, then all the big players should start cooperating more. I.e., Suse, Red Hat, Mandrake et al should produce their own "ultimate" operating system, and say: here is your alternative; now use it. I doubt they would be able to do such a thing while they can give it away free though.

Originally posted by Sidla
Oh, come on. Microsoft isn't that bad.


Yes they are.


I recently installed Linux (Suse), and I can do very little on it. I cannot watch DVDs because it claims there are problems with piracy. I cannot play games because no games are written for Linux (admittedly, this isn't really the fault of Linux), I cannot connect to the internet without subscribing to a Linux ISP...


Hmm, I've been using SuSE since version 6. I'm now using Slackware mostly. I can watch all my DVDs. I've used, variously, BlueYonder, PlusNet, Freeserve and Gemsoft.NET with Linux. I play UT2K4 on my Slackware box.


Basically I can do everything I need to do in Windows.


That's fine. Keep on using it. I, however, cannot do everything I need to do on Windows without jumping through some serious hoops. The point about Free software (as in speech, not beer) is that you can choose yer poison.


If Linux really wanted to rival Windows, then all the big players should start cooperating more. I.e., Suse, Red Hat, Mandrake et al should produce their own "ultimate" operating system, and say: here is your alternative; now use it. I doubt they would be able to do such a thing while they can give it away free though.

Diversity is the spice of life. Also, with a little digging, you'd know that SuSE and RedHat do not distribute the entire distribution for free. RedHat lets Fedora Core (their 'testbed' version) go for free, and SuSE let you download individual files, but not complete CD images, for free. Although there are many completely free distributions (more than I can recall of the top of my head) a SuSE system won't set you far wrong.

Don't pigeon hole an entire branch of the computer industry as useless just because you don't understand the reason for it. I would imagine that if you paid £5000 for a quad opteron system to use for reading email you'd be annoyed at the excessive expense and question why they bother selling them. Others actually need (not just want) that kind of power, for databases or running services, or even performing complex calculation.

Incidentally, to get your DVDs working with linux search install libdvdcss.

I can't believe that Microsoft has bought our adaware. Everytime a nice bit of software comes out... Microsoft takes a laxative and poops all over it.

Sigh!

Originally posted by Sidla
Oh, come on. Microsoft isn't that bad.

I recently installed Linux (Suse), and I can do very little on it. I cannot watch DVDs because it claims there are problems with piracy. I cannot play games because no games are written for Linux (admittedly, this isn't really the fault of Linux), I cannot connect to the internet without subscribing to a Linux ISP...



don't blame linux for your lack of technical knowhow.
It's just an argument that they should make these things easier to do.
You'll note that out of the box windows can't play dvd's.
Many games are now written for linux as well.
And i've no idea what your talking about regaring isps.

Agree with Cyclone - you can make linux do almost anything you want it to. We run linux desktops at work which are fine.