Shall we add to it what's happening with the coming OOXML vote at ISO (aka Microsoft's open XML initiative), all while Microsoft is stuffing ISO national bodies all around the world with their business partners ?

Helping you learn the future and how VCSY fits in.

Saying things are obvious doesn't make it so.

Is the jump from FrontPage to Silverlight "obvious"? Whatever opinion you have is academic.

That won't be the comparison.

Is the jump from FrontPage to SiteFlash "obvious"?

That's what the debate is going to be about.

Is the jump from Silverlight + Avalon obvious to Frontpage? Then extend again further to SiteFlash. Is THAT obvious?

The "keystone" contention everyone depending on a court deciding whether 744 is an obvious derivative from the prior art, which is Frontpage (now retired).

Silverlight is the replacement to Frontpage.

The difference of measurement for "obviousness" is between SiteFlash (744) and Frontpage.

Not between SiteFlash and Silverlight (a subset of 744 capability apparently restricted to content/format subject matter).

Nor between SiteFlash and Avalon (a larger set of 744 claims traversing application development claims and ecology claims [among others]).

Do a comparison of SiteFlash and Avalon/SiteFlash:
Avalon: http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/04/01/Avalon/default.aspx
SiteFlash: http://www.vcsy.com/pands/siteflash.php

Now, think about putting the enterprises of MSFT and their clients at risk on such a flimsy patent defense.

Micro$oft has never liked competition, either open source (linux) or any other type. It has always done measures against the competition, all the way to illegal ones.

The anti-trust case that M$ lost to the DOJ, has not stopped them from attacking the competition, in this case, GNU/Linux. How far they can continue this attack, before some Government on the planet wakes up to the fact that M$ is once again, using it power of the monopoly, in a less than fair competitive way, and takes action against said agressive monopoly. To put it another way, Micro$oft needs to be broken up, highly controlled, and very highly taxed. Also the Governments of the world must make M$ use open standards, and play fair. Open Standards should apply to not only Office formats, but also Audio, Video, Game (directX) formats. Even its API's for running 3rd party games and apps, and drivers, needs to be open sourced by law. In this way, the playing field is leveled for all Operating Systems to compete in a fair way.

Yes chips, killing everybody in Microsoft would also do the job. For me that fact, that even under heavy supervision by the DOJ the last 7 years, even when all other major vendors (IBM, Sun, Oracle, Red Hat, you name it) have all aligned for nearly a decade now against Microsoft and still nobody can come up with a viable alternative to gain even a miserable 10% of the market, tells me one and only one thing. Pure incompetence and the fact that Windows, is so far ahead in many aspects. Come to think about it it's really pathetic for everybody besides Microsoft. Winning and crying is all I hear from them the last decade and competition by litigation is their prime bussiness act. Come up with a better OS and I will be the first one to switch...

rest

So, which is it? Friend or foe?

It's both. Remember the old Ray Noorda phrase "co-opetition?" It's the same idea here. Microsoft is engaging in co-opetition with open source.

In some ways open source competes with Microsoft products, e.g. Linux.

In some ways open source complements Microsoft products, e.g. open source libraries that run on Windows.

Some open source products/projects do a bit of both, e.g. MySQL (or JBoss). It complements some products (e.g. Windows) while competing with others (SQL Server). That's going to happen when a company has a very broad range of products as Microsoft does.

enterprises can't really use Microsoft and open-source software together

Sure they can. I believe a big reason most open source products don't get used by enterprises on Windows is Microsoft's volume licensing means that there isn't a payoff for gradually moving over to open source, e.g. moving from Office to OpenOffice. When you also license Windows, Exchange, SQL Server, Communicator et.al. just moving one application or one application suite to open source doesn't result in any savings. In fact, if an enterprise decides to go with an open source application and pays for support (from say SpikeSource) it ends up costing them money, at least in the short and medium term. Volume licensing == lock in.

"Micro$oft has never liked competition"

No company likes competition...

Evan, you say that if someone comes up with a better OS, you would switch.
The reality is that there have been *technically* better OSes released many times - OS/2 Warp, BeOS, others that I'm not familiar with - and from that same technical standpoint, GNU/Linux - but they all suffer from the Catch-22 Microsoft has put hordes of time, money, and effort in creating: in a Microsoft environment, all you can do to remain compatible is to remain with Microsoft. You want readily available drivers? MS. You want compatibility with widely-used de-facto standard documents such as Word and Excel? MS.
Ousting Windows is going to be a lot like trying to convince the world to ditch the email protocol due to spam problems, or dumping IPv4 for IPv6. It will be difficult, and early adopters will have to make adjustments and sacrifices. (Not to say that ditching email or IPv4 is a 'right' choice - they're just examples, although I do believe that the Open Source/GPL model provides a cleaner, better developer model for 'commodity' software.)
If 'a better OS' means 'everyone already supports it'... well, keep filling out those upgrade payments for a while to the company so many people love to hate, and with good reason. The cycle can be broken, but neither easily nor quickly, especially when MS will defend itself with all it has to prevent that outcome.
I personally ditched Windows for Linux, and love the change - and it throws all of what is wrong with Windows into stark relief. Including, quite candidly, some of what they get right, which is generally limited to parts of their user interface, even though I think this new Ribbon feature is awful, but that's simply my opinion.

Chips, Windows is better than Linux, its just life - accept it.

Akili,
I am not debating here which is technically a better OS. I said in my post that if somebody comes up with a 'viable' alternative not a 'better' alternative.
Even if we accept that Linux or a Mac OS X is technically better than Windows, still that fact that they cannot prevail or at least gain a mediocre market share in the software bussiness, that is a bussiness that is comparetively young (30 years), that changes day by day like no other business, cannot only be attributed to Microsoft's controlling power. They make 5 mistakes for every mistake Microsoft makes. Now they are trying to change the rules by advocating open standards. I bet even if Microsoft said tommorow that it would abandon all the binary formats they haved developed - formats they researched for, developed and rightfully and lawfully protect- in favor of every open standard that's out there, they would still fail to gain a good market share.

To Andre Da Costa :
Isn't your lunch break at Redmond over yet?

But your right, Windows is better because it has all these things that Linux is missing;

Viruses
Spyware (some even from MS themselves)
Adware
Crapware
Scumware
Malware

High cost
Unstable

And let us not forget, that they is no "defrag" in Linux, just not needed. But Windows has it.

Andre Da Costa, look within yourself, THE MAN owns your soul.

evan,
Yes, Microsoft's controlling power is not what keeps other OS'es from gaining decent marketshare. However, let me ask you this:
What market are you referring to? I believe you mean the desktop market. In the server market, Microsoft STILL can't touch UNIX and UNIX-like OS'es, despite repeated attempts. On handhelds, Linux's marketshare keeps climbing and climbing. It's only on desktops that Windows seems to be unbeatable, and there are a number of reasons for that.
First of all, Microsoft concentrates on the desktop first. Few other OS'es are aimed specifically at the desktop like Windows is. That is, in fact, why Windows has trouble getting into the server market (and don't believe Microsoft's NT numbers. In fact, don't believe ANY of Microsoft's numbers, because it's been repeatedly proven they know how to play with the numbers to get the results they want); Windows is a DESKTOP OS, not a server OS. Servers don't need GUI's or DRM stuff in the background or any of that.
Secondly, market inertia. At this point, people stick with Windows because most hardware and software works for it. Switching means you might have to learn brand-new programs. In fact, it is common for people to compare OS'es by how much COMMERCIAL software they have, and Windows kills in that area. Why? High marketshare. No other OS will gain high marketshare without support from certain vendors, certain vendors won't support any new OS'es until they attain high marketshare. It's a never-ending cycle. The reason no one can break it is because breaking this cycle takes TIME, and since most OS'es are driven by a company, they can't wait long enough to break the cycle before they go bankrupt or have to leave the market. Microsoft set this situation up intentionally. Linux has an advantage here because it's not driven by a company, and will keep improving regardless of whether it's being funded or not. But breaking the cycle still takes time. It's happening as we speak; you can see it in the real numbers. Linux desktop marketshare increases every year; it's just not the level of increases you'd be likely to hear about.
Third, fear of change. Companies don't like to change if they don't have to. Change is painful and expensive. At this point, a lot of companies are locked into Microsoft's products, and will continue to pay for them until the cost of changing is lower than the cost of paying Microsoft. This doesn't mean money cost alone, either (I suspect that Microsoft's new spyware/adware OS may be the straw that breaks the camel's back...).

"In the server market, Microsoft STILL can't touch UNIX and UNIX-like OS'es, despite repeated attempts"

Per IDC's U.S. and Worldwide Server Installed Base report published in May of this year, Windows has been the majority (i.e. over 50%) installed server OS in both the U.S. and worldwide since 2002.

"It's only on desktops that Windows seems to be unbeatable"

Linux's growth on the server may be slowing. In the first quarter of this year Windows server revenue growth actually outpaced Linux server revenue growth ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS. Not by much, but it was very surprising nonetheless.

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS20699807

"In the server market, Microsoft STILL can't touch UNIX and UNIX-like OS'es, despite repeated attempts"

Per IDC's U.S. and Worldwide Server Installed Base report published in May of this year, Windows has been the majority (i.e. over 50%) installed server OS in both the U.S. and worldwide since 2002.

"It's only on desktops that Windows seems to be unbeatable"

Linux's growth on the server may be slowing. In the first quarter of this year Windows server revenue growth actually outpaced Linux server revenue growth ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS. Not by much, but it was very surprising nonetheless.

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS20699807

Of course I mean the desktop market. On the server side Microsoft holds are respectable market share that is growing.Linux also grows, but more on the expense of other Unix like OS, and less against windows. I don't remember Microsoft winning about the server market being controlled back then by IBM mainframes and various flavors of UNIX OS. The same goes for the mobile market. They are trying to compete.Their share is comparatively small, cause windows mobile is still a weak offer. They compete trying to improve their offer. That's what everybody else should do on the Desktop market.

I am thinking about some facts;
MS is the biggest software's company of the World
MS gets its objectives with no importance for ethic, and is able to achieve this based on its enormous economic and political power ,cunning lawyers,and lack of scruples
MS is a legally proven criminal.
MS because of its monopoly, charges us with abusively and excessively high prices (proof: obscene enrichment) for a bad or mediocre product or service. Then perpetuating this situation with the killing of every newly born company that could compete against MS.

Then why are people still with MS?:
In general, people dislike changes, and to enabling them to change, they would need more information and serious alternatives (Well now this is happening )
How MS would fight back? FUD and more FUD: by the use of advertising (MS is buying companies dedicated to it ) and Shills (people with no scruples and no imagination who prefer becoming an enslaved witless fat dog that a free thin wolf).
How can we get to differentiate them from the rest? Because of the senseless desperate fight they put up when defending MS. Very similar to what any common folk could do to protect their source of feeding.

Then, Will MS, based on its power and evil tricks, is always meant to be the winner?
No, the reason is simple: they can deceive a lot the people for a short time or a few people for a long while but MS cannot cheat on everyone at once. Because their allegiance is just for the money ,because all people themselves who support MS and MS itself have no security and/or persistence that for example you have when your behavior is based on the common well-being (empires have fallen for the same reason, why not a simple company?.) But remember this is just the beginning of MS's fall, there is a lot of time towards ahead yet.

Correction :but MS cannot cheat on everyone forever.

To Marco;

Quote; "How can we get to differentiate them from the rest?" meaning MS shills
---------------------------------------------------
Its not always easy. But the link in the name to a site that clearly promotes all things MS, is a good clue. Plus the Domain server, another. Not all use Live.com, even the shills. Another tactic is to attack all the time without reason, to change the topic. Shills will also pretend to be not totally pro MS sometimes, and pick one thing (that is really not important) to disagree with MS on. This is another tactic to throw people off and pretend that they are "just another computer user with a blog."

The dead give away, however, is the complete lack of moral ethics, just like their Uncle Bill. Say anything, attack any software that competes with MS, or anyone (the messinger of bad news).

Its all about the money, and these Shills are somehow on the payroll of M$.

Windows 1.0 and 95 are even better than Linux.

Microsoft not so 'open' after all?

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9028318&intsrc=news_ts_head

Hey, everybody. Windows is not better than Linux. Linux is not better than Windows. They each have their pros and cons. Neither platform is perfect.

Linux is a fine desktop OS. I've used it--I know. So, Andre and Neil: stop beating up on it.

Vista is not perfect, but I generally like it, too. Just like Linux, Vista is not for everyone. It really depends on your specific needs. And price can be a critical factor...Linux is free, Vista is not.

And let me add one more thing: MHz for MHz, Linux will always run faster than Vista. On my 1.0GHz Athlon box with 512MB, Ubuntu runs like a dream. Try that with Vista!

Richard
I have never said that Windows is better than Linux !
Chips has said that Linux is !
Get it it right Richard !!
I agree with you that neither platform is perfect, now see what chips says !
My moto is "each to their own" !
Chips has been trying to ram Linux down peoples throughts here, saying that Linux is better.

""In the server market, Microsoft STILL can't touch UNIX and UNIX-like OS'es, despite repeated attempts"

Per IDC's U.S. and Worldwide Server Installed Base report published in May of this year, Windows has been the majority (i.e. over 50%) installed server OS in both the U.S. and worldwide since 2002."

Did they go around and ask all these companies exactly what they're running? Then again, so many NT systems might explain why network exploits and automated takedowns are at an all-time high.

"I don't remember Microsoft winning about the server market being controlled back then by IBM mainframes and various flavors of UNIX OS."

You're right, Microsoft didn't whine about any of this. They didn't have to, because they had the DOS monopoly already. And ahem, but no one has ever held a monopoly on the global server market like the one Microsoft has on the global desktop market, so you can't compare them that way. "UNIX" is not one OS, it is a bunch of OS'es, and it's been falling in value for years. People replace various UNIX'es with Linux because both follow the POSIX standard, so they're easier to exchange than going to Windows and it's non-standard way of doing absolutely everything.

"Chips has been trying to ram Linux down peoples throughts here, saying that Linux is better."

Sorry, but re-reading the comments, I don't see anything like that. I notice discussions about Microsoft's various red herrings and the possible meanings of the Microsoft-Novell deal and all that, and note that the "Linux vs. Windows" BS only came in with one Andre Da Costa, who is a corporate shill and/or a troller if I've ever seen one. His posts are blatantly inflammatory.