Re - O/T: Virus mascarading as Microsoft security patch.

Much more accurately, Microsoft, rather than undoing standards, is taking
advantage of its size and very wisely trying to *create* the standards.
This
worked for the VHS folks very well- which you would have known had you
done
your homework.
Microsoft is not trying to *create* the standards. They take developing and
established standards and modify them with their own proprietary protocols,
so that they are incompatible with the existing standards. They do not, in
general, publish their extensions, so other parties cannot build tools
compliant with them. Microsoft also changes its extensions in a way that is
neither backward compatible nor peer reviewed.

VHS was developed by JVC in 1976. A Microsoft analogy would be if in, say
1981, another company, say Msoft, slightly modified the VHS standard so that
EP would run a 3.1 times SP, rather than at 3 times SP (or some other minor
change), and furthermore introduced a wonderful suite of VHS editing
equipment which worked with the new Msoft VHS-derived standard, but not with
the original JVC standard. Due to some sweet pricing deals, many of the
media companies started using the new software. Msoft also partners with
many major electronic companies to produce VHS players capable of playing
the Msoft VHS tapes, but not the JVC standard tapes. A few years later,
Msoft changes the standard again, and now the pre-recorded tapes produced by
the big media companies no longer play on non Msoft standard VHS tapes. Four
years later, Msoft changes the standard again, and the older generation of
Msfot standard players can't play the new tapes.

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
Much more accurately, Microsoft, rather than undoing standards, is
taking
advantage of its size and very wisely trying to *create* the standards.
This
worked for the VHS folks very well- which you would have known had you
done
your homework.
Microsoft is not trying to *create* the standards. They take developing
and
established standards and modify them with their own proprietary
protocols,
so that they are incompatible with the existing standards.

Thus, in the process, effectively creating a new standard.

I am in no way saying that this has an advantage for the consumer, but it
has certain advantages for Microsoft.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

Scott Hedrick wrote:
"Ami Silberman" wrote in message

Microsoft is not trying to *create* the standards. They take developing

and

established standards and modify them with their own proprietary

protocols,

so that they are incompatible with the existing standards.


Thus, in the process, effectively creating a new standard.

I am in no way saying that this has an advantage for the consumer, but it
has certain advantages for Microsoft.

It can be advantageous for a thief to cut his victim's throat after
stealing his wallet.

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

"Hop David" wrote in message
...


Scott Hedrick wrote:
"Ami Silberman" wrote in message

Microsoft is not trying to *create* the standards. They take developing

and

established standards and modify them with their own proprietary

protocols,

so that they are incompatible with the existing standards.


Thus, in the process, effectively creating a new standard.

I am in no way saying that this has an advantage for the consumer, but
it
has certain advantages for Microsoft.

It can be advantageous for a thief to cut his victim's throat after
stealing his wallet.

It's also advantageous for trolls to munge their email addresses, but
neither that nor your statement has anything to do with Microsoft. After
all, everyone who uses Microsoft products does so voluntarily- at least,
they aren't being coerced by Microsoft.

I'm still waiting to see the verifiable evidence to support the claims that
there is some mandate anywhere to remove non-Microsoft products from
libraries (the original poster implying that the mandate came from
Microsoft). If such a mandate exists, there is a record of it somewhere.
Let's see the evidence. With so many libraries around the country, it
shouldn't be too difficult to find verifiable proof.

Of course, when it comes to such an absurd statement, we know the proof lies
with Mr. Gorsky.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
.. .
"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
Much more accurately, Microsoft, rather than undoing standards, is
taking
advantage of its size and very wisely trying to *create* the
standards.
This
worked for the VHS folks very well- which you would have known had you
done
your homework.
Microsoft is not trying to *create* the standards. They take developing
and
established standards and modify them with their own proprietary
protocols,
so that they are incompatible with the existing standards.

Thus, in the process, effectively creating a new standard.

I am in no way saying that this has an advantage for the consumer, but it
has certain advantages for Microsoft.

I does have advantages to Microsoft, but what they are producing is not what
most people consider a standard, it is a proprietary protocol or format.
Most people view a standard (whether open or proprietary) as a means of
fostering interoperability and compatibility. In general, extensions or
revisions to standards maintain backward compatibility. In the case of
session-based network protocols, for example, software compliant with a new
version maintains the ability to conduct a session according to the older
version. Microsoft develops their own protocols and formats (which may be
shared with industry partners), but reserves the right to change them
unilaterally. Normally changes to standards, even proprietary ones, are
negotiated among the stakeholders. Microsoft's business model works because
of their large market share, and because of the large sunk cost in Microsoft
products.

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
Microsoft develops their own protocols and formats (which may be
shared with industry partners), but reserves the right to change them
unilaterally.

And there is *nothing wrong with that*, legally at least, because it's their
intellectual property and they can do what they want with it.

Normally changes to standards, even proprietary ones, are
negotiated among the stakeholders. Microsoft's business model works
because
of their large market share, and because of the large sunk cost in
Microsoft
products.

Since it's working for Microsoft, there is no reason for them to change.
It's very clear that the real world marketplace doesn't think this to be
enough of a problem to warrant doing anything about it. The market is free
to change, but isn't willing to spend the resources necessary to actually do
anything. Instead, they keep buying the same products. *Word* are completely
irrelevant- no matter how much you bitch about something, if you keep buying
it instead of the freely- available alternatives (in this case, the many
alternative operating systems), you are *proving* that you like it. It's
really more a matter of the whiny twits not willing to put forth any effort
to actually learn something new- putting up with something crappy that you
know is more comforting than learning how to use something better.
*Microsoft* did not create human nature, its just very good at taking
advantage of it- for which it should be *rewarded*. The same people that
complain about Microsoft keep buying Microsoft products *in spite* of the
freely available alternatives, so their *actions* show that their *words*
are lies. It's just easier to be a victim than to actually do something.

People don't buy Microsoft products because they are the best- they buy them
because Microsoft products are good enough, *and that's all they need to
be*. The marketplace has proven that good enough is good enough.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
.. .
"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
Microsoft develops their own protocols and formats (which may be
shared with industry partners), but reserves the right to change them
unilaterally.

And there is *nothing wrong with that*, legally at least, because it's
their
intellectual property and they can do what they want with it.


Correct, but I just wanted to point out that what Microsoft does with, say
Java, or C++, isn't really a standard anymore.

Normally changes to standards, even proprietary ones, are
negotiated among the stakeholders. Microsoft's business model works
because
of their large market share, and because of the large sunk cost in
Microsoft
products.

Since it's working for Microsoft, there is no reason for them to change.
It's very clear that the real world marketplace doesn't think this to be
enough of a problem to warrant doing anything about it. The market is free
to change, but isn't willing to spend the resources necessary to actually
do
anything. Instead, they keep buying the same products. *Word* are
completely
irrelevant- no matter how much you bitch about something, if you keep
buying
it instead of the freely- available alternatives (in this case, the many
alternative operating systems), you are *proving* that you like it. It's
really more a matter of the whiny twits not willing to put forth any
effort
to actually learn something new- putting up with something crappy that you
know is more comforting than learning how to use something better.
*Microsoft* did not create human nature, its just very good at taking
advantage of it- for which it should be *rewarded*. The same people that
complain about Microsoft keep buying Microsoft products *in spite* of the
freely available alternatives, so their *actions* show that their *words*
are lies. It's just easier to be a victim than to actually do something.

One of the problems is that even if you don't want to use Microsoft
products, you exist in a world full of them. I work on projects that attempt
to integrate systems that use a variety of different hardwares, operating
sytems, middleware, application languages etc. It is a real pain, and
costly, when nominally portable products aren't portable, or when standards
aren't. It's not a case of Joe Homeuser, or Joe Academic User, deciding
whether to use Linux, or Windows. Its a case of multiple ACAT 1 programs,
some of which are committed to using Windows, and others to using Solaris.
You end up building a lot of duplication into the system because Microsoft's
versions of LDAP or DNS don't work that well with those built according to
the various standards. There are enormous sunk costs in some programs, there
are also, for some of them, sound technological reasons why they must remain
on Solaris platforms.

And Microsoft has done some things which are probably morally wrong with
regards to standard compliance. Some people believe that if you commit to
using a particular standard, that your extensions should not "break" that
standard, and that you shouldn't thereafter claim to be using that standard.
See http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/ for one example.

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
One of the problems is that even if you don't want to use Microsoft
products, you exist in a world full of them.

But you *don't* have to deal with them. It all depends on just how much
avoiding Microsoft products means to you. You're prefectly free to buy a
tent and find some woods to live in. You'd think that, from the sheer volume
of noise that some people make about Microsoft, they'd be chomping at the
bit to do so. Instead, they'd rather just **** and moan and not actually
*do* anything. Those are the sort of people I flap my buttcheeks at. I have
plenty of gripes about Microsoft products as well, but rather than whine I
get off my ass and do something about it, such as fix the Microsoft product
or use one of the freely-available alternatives, than simply yap about it.

You end up building a lot of duplication into the system because
Microsoft's
versions of LDAP or DNS don't work that well with those built according to
the various standards.

What are the personal consequences to you if you quit that job and went to
work for a place that doesn't use Microsoft products, such as a clerk at a
roadside vegetable stand? The real problem with the whiny *******s who post
about Microsoft here is that *all they do is whine*- they want a free ride
and are unwilling to actually *do* anything to eliminate Microsoft from
their lives because they have decided they are much more comfortable in a
world that has Microsoft than they would be in a world without Microsoft.
Microsoft exists, wishing it would go away (or intentionally misspelling
"Microsoft") won't make it so, and if wishes were horses these people would
realize they are full of horse****. The consequences of suddenly eliminating
Microsoft from their personal worlds are more than they are willing to
suffer, so instead they just whine like children.

There are enormous sunk costs in some programs, there
are also, for some of them, sound technological reasons why they must
remain
on Solaris platforms.

That's the same excuse why we're still using QWERTY and not Dvorak. The
problems with using QWERTY have not sunk to the depths needed to justify the
investment in Dvorak.

And Microsoft has done some things which are probably morally wrong with
regards to standard compliance.

*That* is why I specified "legally". More to the point, if the *moral* issue
means so much to you or anyone else, then you won't use Microsoft products.
In my particular case, I have a real problem with Microsoft's activation
policies, which is why I haven't purchased Office XP, and won't. In fact, it
was the presentation at a pre-launch Microsoft Big Day that convinced me
more than anything else *not* to buy Office XP. I've considered getting
PowerPoint 2002 because of its publisher program, but the old Pack N Go will
have to do. I have a copy of Office 2000 which has an activation scheme, and
because I flush my system a few times a year and constantly tinker I have to
constantly deal with it. I was going to drop TurboTax for the same reason,
but my wife just took up scrapbooking and they are offering scrapbook
software with purchase, as well as legal software (which will come in handy
since I just opened a legal self-help center). So, when it comes to
activation "features", we've decided what I am, we're just negotiating price
. Because of the way Microsoft is going- I'm a very small business and
Microsoft is moving towards "groupware"- they are no longer offering what I,
the consumer want. I am currently building a machine for Linux and will be
switching over to it. Also, I found a very well featured shareware Office
program called Easy Office. I offer on a CD for one of my real estate books
the very Office files I use for my own transactions; I am now including Easy
Office on the CD precisely because I am trying to steer folks away from
Microsoft Office. I found a copy of WordPerfect for Linux 8 for $9 at Office
Depot, another good reason for converting (even though I much prefer Word).
So, rather than ****ing and moaning and spreading manure, I choose to
actually *do* something to reduce my use of Microsoft products. The only
Microsoft product I know I want to buy right now is Space Simulator.

Some people believe that if you commit to
using a particular standard, that your extensions should not "break" that
standard, and that you shouldn't thereafter claim to be using that
standard.

If your products are the most popular ones- and in the marketplace, *sales*
are the sole criteria for determining popularity- then you get to set the
standard. When the public stops buying your products because they don't
comply with some outside party's "standard", then and only then would you
have the incentive to change.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
.. .
"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
One of the problems is that even if you don't want to use Microsoft
products, you exist in a world full of them.

But you *don't* have to deal with them. It all depends on just how much
avoiding Microsoft products means to you. You're prefectly free to buy a
tent and find some woods to live in. You'd think that, from the sheer
volume
of noise that some people make about Microsoft, they'd be chomping at the
bit to do so. Instead, they'd rather just **** and moan and not actually
*do* anything. Those are the sort of people I flap my buttcheeks at. I
have
plenty of gripes about Microsoft products as well, but rather than whine I
get off my ass and do something about it, such as fix the Microsoft
product
or use one of the freely-available alternatives, than simply yap about it.

I don't care whether I use Microsoft products or not. I find it a problem
because I sometimes have to engineer solutions around their view of
"standards". I do so because it is in our sponser's best interest to have a
solution that works.

You end up building a lot of duplication into the system because
Microsoft's
versions of LDAP or DNS don't work that well with those built according
to
the various standards.

What are the personal consequences to you if you quit that job and went to
work for a place that doesn't use Microsoft products, such as a clerk at a
roadside vegetable stand? The real problem with the whiny *******s who
post
about Microsoft here is that *all they do is whine*- they want a free ride
and are unwilling to actually *do* anything to eliminate Microsoft from
their lives because they have decided they are much more comfortable in a
world that has Microsoft than they would be in a world without Microsoft.
Microsoft exists, wishing it would go away (or intentionally misspelling
"Microsoft") won't make it so, and if wishes were horses these people
would
realize they are full of horse****. The consequences of suddenly
eliminating
Microsoft from their personal worlds are more than they are willing to
suffer, so instead they just whine like children.

Let me spell it out simply:
I have no problem with using Microsoft products.
I do not want to quit my job.
I do not like the fact that Microsoft has made it difficult to integrate
systems using their view of "standards" with those using standards set up
according to the various RFCs etc.
I attempt, sometimes successfully, to persuade sponsers to use non-Microsoft
versions of DNS, LDAP etc. in order to foster integration.
I still think that I am entitled to complain about the integration problems
that mixing Microsoft and Solaris/Linux involves, even while I do so.

There is also a third course between quiting ones job, and trying to
de-Microsoft, and that is to try to change Microsoft, in part by drawing
people's attentions to the technical shortcomings of certain Microsoft
products, by suggesting that people that develop for Microsoft platforms
attempt to preserve interoperability (especially when it is part of their
requirements) by using Internet Standard compliant software etc.

And Microsoft has done some things which are probably morally wrong with
regards to standard compliance.

*That* is why I specified "legally". More to the point, if the *moral*
issue
means so much to you or anyone else, then you won't use Microsoft
products.

Why? It doesn't mean so much to me that I won't use Microsoft products, or
that I will picket Microsoft, but it means enough to me that I will suggest
that, when building a suite of mixed-OS interoperating systems, that one use
a distributed computing environment like Jini that does not require a
homogeneous Microsoft solution. The Microsoft business model has certain
technical consequences, and I feel that it is quite reasonable to comment
upon them.

In my particular case, I have a real problem with Microsoft's activation
policies, which is why I haven't purchased Office XP, and won't. In fact,
it
was the presentation at a pre-launch Microsoft Big Day that convinced me
more than anything else *not* to buy Office XP. I've considered getting
PowerPoint 2002 because of its publisher program, but the old Pack N Go
will
have to do. I have a copy of Office 2000 which has an activation scheme,
and
because I flush my system a few times a year and constantly tinker I have
to
constantly deal with it. I was going to drop TurboTax for the same reason,
but my wife just took up scrapbooking and they are offering scrapbook
software with purchase, as well as legal software (which will come in
handy
since I just opened a legal self-help center). So, when it comes to
activation "features", we've decided what I am, we're just negotiating
price
. Because of the way Microsoft is going- I'm a very small business and
Microsoft is moving towards "groupware"- they are no longer offering what
I,
the consumer want. I am currently building a machine for Linux and will be
switching over to it. Also, I found a very well featured shareware Office
program called Easy Office. I offer on a CD for one of my real estate
books
the very Office files I use for my own transactions; I am now including
Easy
Office on the CD precisely because I am trying to steer folks away from
Microsoft Office. I found a copy of WordPerfect for Linux 8 for $9 at
Office
Depot, another good reason for converting (even though I much prefer
Word).
So, rather than ****ing and moaning and spreading manure, I choose to
actually *do* something to reduce my use of Microsoft products. The only
Microsoft product I know I want to buy right now is Space Simulator.

Good on you. There are different economic and technical influences if you
are engineering complex systems of systems which involve legacy systems
(some more than ten years old), and a multitude of stakeholders.
Some people believe that if you commit to
using a particular standard, that your extensions should not "break"
that
standard, and that you shouldn't thereafter claim to be using that
standard.

I probably should have put in the sarcasm tag.
I feel th

If your products are the most popular ones- and in the marketplace,
*sales*
are the sole criteria for determining popularity- then you get to set the
standard. When the public stops buying your products because they don't
comply with some outside party's "standard", then and only then would you
have the incentive to change.
--
OK, shall we agree to disagree about the definition of "standard"?
You mean it to mean "defined interface or format", or something like that.

I mean it to mean a "defined interface or format" as specified by a
Standards Organization such as IEEE, the IETF, W3C, ISOC etc., or by an
industry trade organization.

There are economic benefits both to adhering to an external standard and to
maintaining a proprietary interface, and the full effects of either course
may not become clear for years. (For example, the military is now struggling
with a multitude of vendor specific batteries, some of which require company
service reps to replace.)

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
I still think that I am entitled to complain about the integration
problems
that mixing Microsoft and Solaris/Linux involves, even while I do so.

Sure- but that won't change anything. *You* can certainly complain here,
since *you* have made some contribution here and aren't simply a troll.
Please stick around

There is also a third course between quiting ones job, and trying to
de-Microsoft, and that is to try to change Microsoft,

There's no current reason for Microsoft to change. There's no evidence that
Microsoft will have a significantly improved bottom line by fixing its
products or making them cooperate better with competitor's products. In
fact, the more Microsoft moves towards making its products work better with
others, the easier it will be for the competitors to horn in on Microsoft's
market share. In the end, because Microsoft has such a large market share,
it's better for Microsoft to keep on keeping things proprietary and forcing
everyone else to jump to their tune. Technical reasoning isn't enough- the
only real incentive any company has to change is the improvement of the
bottom line. Microsoft's bottom line is simply not threatened by being
uncooperative. Even a simple boycott isn't enough- each and every person who
is boycotting Microsoft has to send an individual, personal letter
explaining why they aren't buying Microsoft products, otherwise a boycott is
ineffective in creating a desired change, it merely results in a business
downturn.

The Microsoft business model has certain
technical consequences, and I feel that it is quite reasonable to comment
upon them.

Please note that I've never said anything about the technical aspect of
Microsoft products, because in the end technical superiority is irrelevant.
If it were important, we'd all be using Beta

(For example, the military is now struggling
with a multitude of vendor specific batteries, some of which require
company
service reps to replace.)

Which is the fault of the customer, but not really, because it's probably
just something they never thought about in the specs.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.