Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

Jesse Pollard
2001-06-21T13:00:51Z

>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html >
> >
> > Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
> >
> > Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part of their offerings...
>
> Which brings up an interesting question for us all. Let's postulate, for
> the sake of discussion, that we agree on the following:
>
> a) Linux (or just about any Unix) is a better low level OS than NT
> b) Microsoft's application infrastructure is better (the COM layer,
> the stuff that lets apps talk to each, the desktop, etc).

Not completly - the COM layer is (my opinion) part of what propagates some
of their security problems. What else would be capable of disabling a
cruser so fast (and take two hours to restart)...

There appears to be no functional difference between COM and CORBA
(based on superficial knowlege only) except specification availability.

> I know we can argue that KDE/GNOME/whatever is going to get there or is
> there or is better, etc., but for the time being lets just pretend that
> the Microsoft stuff is better.
>
> What would be wrong with Microsoft/Linux? It would be:
>
> a) the Linux kernel
> b) the Microsoft API ported to X
> c) Microsoft apps
> d) Linux apps
>
> Since Microsoft is all about making money, it doesn't matter if they
> charge for the dll's or the OS, either one is fine, you can't run Word
> without them. If you don't need the Microsoft apps, you could strip
> them off and strip off the dlls and ship all the rest of it without
> giving Microsoft a dime. If you do need the apps or you want the app
> infrastructure, you have to give Microsoft exactly what you have to give
> them today - money - but you can run Word side by side with Ghostview
> or whatever. Microsoft could charge exactly the same amount for the
> dll's as they charge for the OS, none of the end users can tell the
> difference anyway.

Ah yes, raise the Mr. Bill tax... The DLLs ought to be less than half
the price of the OS .. after all, they are a small part of the distribution
and belong to the application(s).

If you attempt to find a full installation of NT (JUST the OS), it will
cost ~400+ dollars (US). If you then add Office, add an additional 200.
If you want program development, add another 200 to 600, maybe more
since I haven't looked recently.

For the most part, I wouldn't complain too much about their prices. If the
products would work. If they didn't have such horrible security. If the
"patches" supplied would also work and not introduce more and different
failures.

BTW, the prices are actually slightly less than what AT&T, SCO, and others
charged for pieces of a unix system when they were originally sold
($600 base os, $600 application development, $600 documentation workbench
all values approximate, from memory).

> I'm unimpressed with what Microsoft calls an operating system and
> I'm equally unimpressed with what Unix calls an application layer.
> For the last 10 years, Unix has gotten the OS right and the apps wrong
> and Microsoft has gotten the apps right and the OS wrong. Seems like
> there is potential for a win-win.

I'm equally unimpressed by their applications - how many macro viruses
exist? How do they propagate? How many times do they change file formats?
How many patches are (re)issued to "fix" the same problem?

The biggest improvement would be that users could remain with a version
that works for them and NOT be forced to pay more money for the same
functionality (watch out for the XP license virus... also known as
a logic bomb).

> You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
> of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
> your Linux talks in PowerPoint.

Not by choice - I'm forced to use M$ crap because the conferences will
not accept anything else (yet another monopoly point). Personally, I would
prefer to use Applix, StarOffice, WordPerfect, FrameMaker, ... Only one
of which is "free".

I agree that M$ applications should be available. But until M$ quits
appropriating other peoples code and calling it theirs I, for one, don't
want to be forced to use them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.